Third wave atheism or the ‘new skepticism’?


edit: I saw Jen’s follow-up post as well.  I like this image best:

—-

A couple of days ago (I’ve been moving and such), Jen wrote this post on her blog about how the atheist community has been a “boy’s club” and how we need to help progress towards a “third wave” of atheism.  The key part is this:

I don’t want good causes like secularism and skepticism to die because they’re infested with people who see issues of equality as mission drift. I want Deep Rifts. I want to be able to truthfully say that I feel safe in this movement. I want the misogynists, racists, homophobes, transphobes, and downright trolls out of the movement for the same reason I wouldn’t invite them over for dinner or to play Mario Kart: because they’re not good people. We throw up billboards claiming we’re Good Without God, but how are we proving that as a movement? Litter clean-ups and blood drives can only say so much when you’re simultaneously threatening your fellow activists with rape and death.

It’s time for a new wave of atheism, just like there were different waves of feminism. I’d argue that it’s already happened before. The “first wave” of atheism were the traditional philosophers, freethinkers, and academics. Then came the second wave of “New Atheists” like Dawkins and Hitchens, whose trademark was their unabashed public criticism of religion. Now it’s time for a third wave – a wave that isn’t just a bunch of “middle-class, white, cisgender, heterosexual, able-bodied men” patting themselves on the back for debunking homeopathy for the 983258th time or thinking up yet another great zinger to use against Young Earth Creationists. It’s time for a wave that cares about how religion affects everyone and that applies skepticism to everything, including social issues like sexism, racism, politics, poverty, and crime. We can criticize religion and irrational thinking just as unabashedly and just as publicly, but we need to stop exempting ourselves from that criticism.

Yes, I agree.  We, in the blogosphere have been talking a lot about “new” (or “gnu”) atheism, but in the same way that a Jr. leads to a III, we can have the future of the skeptic/atheist movement be a third wave where we include all of the various effects that religion, theological thinking, and non-skepticism generally affects our lives.

In short, we need to transcend mere atheism and move onto application of skepticism to all aspects of culture, beliefs, and actions.  We need a new skepticism.

I have been trying to do just that for years at this blog.  I saw the kinds of arguments that people had about god, religion, and things like science, and saw parallels between how we think about monogamy and polyamory.  I saw unskeptical thinking leading people towards conservative views about sex and relationships, and I began to draw those lines using what I had seen in the skeptical community since I ran into it a decade ago.

In the years that I have run this blog (and after subsequently adding some new writers), I have broadened my focus to include questions of orientation, gender, and have even wrote about my own neuro-atypicality.  Yes, I still focus on atheism and polyamory most of the time, but that is because these are the subjects I know best.  I look to people like Ginny (my lovely wife) to write about gender, trans, sexology issues (when she’s not burdened by grad school work, that is).  And Wes and Gina do their things, whether controversy or convulsions of laughter.

In doing this, I have come to a fairly progressive perspective, which I suppose is no surprise to anyone who knows me.  I support LGBT rights, including the right to marry, raise children, etc.  I support people who are simply trying to live their lives with political and legal freedom afforded to them not according to theological concerns, but by rational and empirical arguments based on fairness and compassion.

But most importantly, I support the freedom of speech and thought, without which the freedom to act would be parochial and hindered.  As Keenan Malik recently said,

Whatever one’s beliefs, secular or religious, there should be complete freedom to express them, short of inciting violence or other forms of physical harm to others. Whatever one’s beliefs, secular or religious, there should be freedom to assemble to promote them. And whatever one’s beliefs, secular or religious, there should be freedom to act upon those beliefs, so long as in so doing one neither physically harms another individual without their consent nor transgresses that individual’s rights in the public sphere. These should be the fundamental principles by which we judge the permissibility of any belief or act, whether religious or secular.

(H/T Greg Mayer over at WEIT)

I support maintaining a skeptical community that fights for the truth, is aware of concepts like privilege and how it influences or worldviews, and which perpetually self-improves by allowing for criticism and dissent, when dissent is warranted.

To conclude, I agree with Jen that we need a third wave of atheism.  And whether we think of it as an atheist movement, a skeptical movement, or a social justice movement led by skeptics and atheists, the important thing is that we must keep challenging ourselves to understand more, listen better, and remember that religion and non-skeptical thinking has effects which may not be immediately obvious to us, with our perspective.  Religion effects different groups in different ways, and so we need to be inclusive in order to progress towards the goal.

The goal of making ourselves, as activists, obsolete.

PolySkeptic Compound!


I grew up in Philadelphia.  I love Philadelphia.  For college and grad school, I was not far away, and I visited often.  I love being in and near major cities, for many reasons.  It has something to do with easy access to culture and more tolerant and accepting people.  In other words, you can get away with being weird easier.

A few years ago I was involved with a woman (she-who-shall-not-be-named…oh fuck it, her name was Seana), who got a job in Atlanta.  The relationship was going well, and at the time I was not working and decided to take the risk of moving to Atlanta with her.  ‘Risk’ being the operative word.  Turns out that she was an evil monster worthy of fantasy-lore, and I ended up not with her anymore.   I think that’s for the best.

But while down there, after having my heart yanked out, stomped on, and then rebuilt in order to smack it around with a badminton racket (some people have strange kinks), I met Ginny, and luckily she didn’t like badminton that much.  So we started dating and her academic pursuits led her to the Philadelphia area and thus I eventually moved back to Philadelphia and have lived here for the last year-and-a-half or so.

Until now.

Now, I live in New Jersey (which is totes better than that old Jersey, from what I hear).  And this has been the source of epic teasing–of me, by me–because we Philadelphians are raised to make fun of New Jersey.  It’s the perfect set-up for self deprecating humor, really.   Also, it’s Philly tradition or someshit.  I think it has something to do with people waiting in lines at Geno’s or Pat’s at 3:30 AM being generally stupid while figuring out how to order a cheesesteak.

Naturally, we assume they are all from New Jersey.

Well, look at me now! I’m living in New Jersey.  Granted, I’m only a PATCO ride from Philly, but I’m almost in another universe, really.

I kid, I kid…and then some years later I goad.  Wow, that was a really terrible and spontaneous attempt at a pun which probably fails in text.  Oh well, it’s typed now and there is nothing I can do about it anymore, so I will have to live with it.  And so will you.

It’s actually sort of awesome because my life now has the soundtrack written by the collaboration of the various love-babies of Bruce Springsteen and Jon Bon Jovi.

So, why “PolySKeptic Compound”? Well, it’s because now all of us polyskeptic writers (at least, those of us that survived the great PolySkeptic wars…see here, here, here, and here for example) now live under one roof! And if Jessie would actually accept my invitation to contribute, we could have the whole house involved! A blog orgy…or something.

OK, maybe not “orgy.” Polyamory is not all about the sex, right? Think of it as an orgy of fun.  Not that orgies aren’t fun….  You know, never mind! I don’t want to hear your anticipated groans of disapproval at my terrible humor.  No orgies then, goddammit!  Also, there is no god.  Probably.  And if there is a god, then it’s a total dickwad.

OK, so back to the point.  We are living in the same house now.  I got rid of a lot of books for the move but I still have a lot of them around me.  There’s also a lamp shaped like a guitar.  And cats.  Cats are assholes, BTW.  I like them and all, but they scratch at your door early in the morning.  And it’s hard to get them into the microwave.

Like, really hard.
So, now that I’m living in The Jerz, perhaps we’ll start making videos and call it “Jersey? Sure!” in which we shall make baby Jesus cry with our orgies of fun-but-not-as-fun-as-sex-orgies-fun.   Also, no Snooki. It’s funny because it sort of sounds like I said “no nookie.”  Really, it’s funny.  Also, I’m working on my abs so I can be “The Circumstance” and be world famous for something other than my hilarious jokes and intimidating intelligence.

Gina is laughing.  That’s all that matters.

The rest of you can eat a bag of dicks.

With a spoon.

So, this is what happens when I wake up at 7:30 in the morning….

But, in all seriousness now, I’m quite happy to be here, and I look forward to my new life in New Jersey.  Hell, beer is cheaper here.

 

One More for the List


Editorial Note: This post was written by Wes Fenza, long before the falling out of our previous quint household and the subsequent illumination of his abusive behavior, sexual assault of several women, and removal from the Polyamory Leadership Network and banning from at least one conference. I have left Wes’ posts  here because I don’t believe it’s meaningful to simply remove them. You cannot remove the truth by hiding it; Wes and I used to collaborate, and his thoughts will remain here, with this notice attached.

—–

 

A couple of days ago, JT Eberhard wrote a post about the five best atheists. His nominations:

1. PZ Myers
2. Greta Christina
3. Hemant Mehta
4. Dave Silverman
5. Matt Dillahunty

All good choices, but he left out one of my favorite bloggers and activists:

JT Eberhard

Unapologetic, brave, honest, and compassionate, JT Eberhard is everything that we could hope for from the next generation of activists. If you meet him at an event, he’s one of the warmest, most sincere people you’ll ever meet. And if you can’t find him, just send him a tweet at @jteberhard and he’ll let you know where to meet up. Aside from his hobby of eviscerating theist arguments, JT donates spends countless hours of his time to working for the Secular Student Alliance, fighting for the rights of students to grow up in an environment that doesn’t make them feel ostracized for being atheists. Call him a role model. Call him humanity’s best chance in a zombie apocalypse. Call him a friend. Just don’t call him a hero.

Not My Sexual Revolution


Editorial Note: This post was written by Wes Fenza, long before the falling out of our previous quint household and the subsequent illumination of his abusive behavior, sexual assault of several women, and removal from the Polyamory Leadership Network and banning from at least one conference. I have left Wes’ posts  here because I don’t believe it’s meaningful to simply remove them. You cannot remove the truth by hiding it; Wes and I used to collaborate, and his thoughts will remain here, with this notice attached.

—–

 

Deborah Anapol is one of the founders of the polyamory movement. Her contributions to the movement cannot be overstated. She is the cofounder of Loving More magazine, and the author of Polyamory: The New Love Without Limits. She works tirelessly to promote acceptance of my lifestyle, and she is a truly valuable ally to have.

That said, I need to express my disagreement with her recent article in Psychology Today, where she argues that the sexual revolution has, after tallying up a remarkable number of achievements, stalled:

The architects of the Sexual Revolution intended to unleash the evolutionary energies of sex and love in service of human liberation. Instead, attempts at sexual r/evolution have been repeatedly sidetracked, hijacked, and eventually derailed by a combination of greed, lust, and immaturity. Sex and love are potent forces which can easily spiral out of control. While change always stirs fear in those who cling to the security of the familiar, the absence of a strong spiritual foundation at the heart of the sexual revolution aroused legitimate concerns for many. Ultimately, the lack of integrity in the movement for sexual freedom has prevented the unfolding of its full potential for transforming society. Furthermore, its failure to focus on the ecological consequences of colonizing our planet in the same way we have colonized our own bodies and genitals, has drastically curtailed its relevance.

She seems to be tracing the problems with our sexuality to two causes: (1) the lack of spirituality in the movement, and (2) the failure to merge the sexual revolution movement with the environmental movement.

The nicest term I can come up with for this is “bullshit.” Anapol does not define what she means by “spirituality,” so she may mean something different, but she’s writing in Psychology Today, which is a mainstream publication. The mainstream understanding of spirituality refers to religion. Religion, as will be obvious to most readers of this blog, is the main force holding back further progression of the sexual revolution. The fear of sex in our society is intrinsically linked to Christian values, which completely saturate American society. Furthermore, holding sex as “sacred,” as Anapol suggests, only encourages people to be as irrational about sex as they are about prayer. The way to move the sexual revolution forward is to encourage sober-minded rationalism about sex. That means more thinking rationally, less holding things sacred.

Secondly, I don’t see what sexual issues and environmental issues have to do with each other, except that right-wingers hate them both. Anapol seems to be arguing that respect for women’s bodies and respect for the Earth come from the same place. That idea has no rational basis. “Mother Earth” is not a real person. The rational basis for environmentalism is selfish. We need the environment. Destroying the environment is bad for us. Respecting women’s bodies is not about selfish goals. It’s about recognizing that all people deserve a minimum amount of respect and decency. There are selfish reasons to respect women’s bodies as well, but that doesn’t seem to be Anapol’s connection.

Also, I don’t really agree that the sexual revolution has stalled. Our society is becoming more comfortable about sex every day. Gay marriage is legal in six states, with many more expected in the near future, and polls show that it’s supported by a majority of Americans. Every major city has a kink scene. High-profile people are standing up for non-monogamy. No-fault divorce has largely put an end to the legal consequences of adultery. Comprehensive sex education is now available with a few clicks of a mouse. Pornography is now available for almost any sexual interest imaginable. Websites like Fetlife has created communities where nobody is shamed for their sexual desires. We still have a long way to go, but I think we’re on the right track. Change is happening. But, like all big changes, it’s happening slowly. I don’t know what Anapol thinks has gone so wrong.

Funny, She Doesn’t Look Druish…


I remember sitting in a movie theater years and years ago watching Star Wars: The Phantom Menace and being wildly amused by all the racial stereotyping being used as “character development”.  Clearly Lucas thought he could get away with it because they were aliens, people…but you can’t really get away with it when it’s so freaking obvious.  Just ask Michael Bay about his ridiculous ice cream truck Transformers.

It started with the Trade Federation representatives who were clearly Asian.  I mean, they looked like fish, but they didn’t look like Admiral Ackbar…instead, they were oddly reminiscent of catfish or coy.  And then they spoke with a bad Asian accent.

Then there were the Jamaicans…I mean, whatever the fuck Jar Jar was.

And then there was the hook nosed blue flying trader/slave owning alien Jew.  Obviously.

I admit fully that I laughed a lot about this, as I generally do when anyone says anything or does anything anti-Semitic these days.  It’s generally how I feel when anyone says anything against Russians or Communists.  I find it absurd that anyone still has anything to say about Jews or Communists.  It seems out of place in the world today, so I can’t help but assume that people are saying these things ironically/sarcastically as an homage to shit-tacular times past.  So when the Blue Jew appeared on screen and bartered for Ani’s freedom I said, “Holy crap…they made the shady business monster Jewish…FOR REAL? AMAZING.”

Obviously, racism and other -isms never go away.  People are raised with idiocy and it prevails through generations.  So, of course there is still rampant antisemitism.  And even when it’s not necessarily antisemitism, the stereotypes prevail.

Take Mitt Romney.  Please.

Rim shot.

Anyway, take Mitt Romney.  He goes to Palestine and pisses off all the Palestinians (like only a great Presidential hopeful should do) by saying,

“And as I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things,” Romney said, citing an innovative business climate, the Jewish history of thriving in difficult circumstances and the “hand of providence.”

The Palestinians were outraged because these were thinly shrouded racist remarks about them.  I would agree with that assessment, but what struck me so much about this story was how Mitt got up in front of a bunch of Jews and said, “You’re successful because you’re good with money” and that they were God’s chosen people or something.

I admit that laughed out loud at this whole thing.  I got this image of Mitt preparing for his trip and choosing to read “How to be a Jewish Mother” as his primary source of research.  I will always find this hilarious because I can’t believe that these stereotypes are still relevant.

Several years ago the owners of a company I was working for were Jewish.  It was a father and son duo and I suppose I would characterize the father as someone who would have fit right in with my Jewish relatives.  I will point out that Wes’ Uncle Bob also would have fit right in and he was quite Catholic.  I think the stereotype is more generational rather than religiously cultural.  Anyway, this guy I worked with came into my office and said the following to my office mate, “Did you hear what the Jew did?”  Neither of us knew he was talking about.  “Who?” my office mate asked.  “The Jew…” We both looked puzzled.  Then he clarified that he was talking about our president and I looked at him, cracked up for a second and then said, “The Jew? Really?  What is this, 1945?  You’re kidding, right?  Are you about to make a penny pincher joke?  Because that would be classic.”  He left without another word.  I still find this funnier than I find it offensive because it just seemed so archaic!

Anyway, back to Romney.  After he insulted Palestine by saying that they were culturally inferior to Jews, he then went on to say something about Jerusalem being the capital of Israel, which is true according to Isrealis, but not according to the rest of the world…especially not to the Palestinians.  No matter what you think about this particular conflict, it should be obvious that a dude trying to become President of the United States should probably know things about international affairs.

I think this is going to be a hysterical election…during the times in between when it’s terrifying I guess.  Romney is a jackass, but I haven’t repressed the memory of Bush yet.

Why Being Nice Means Nothing


Editorial Note: This post was written by Wes Fenza, long before the falling out of our previous quint household and the subsequent illumination of his abusive behavior, sexual assault of several women, and removal from the Polyamory Leadership Network and banning from at least one conference. I have left Wes’ posts  here because I don’t believe it’s meaningful to simply remove them. You cannot remove the truth by hiding it; Wes and I used to collaborate, and his thoughts will remain here, with this notice attached.

—–

 

Go read this article:

“God damn it, you’ve got to be nice” sounds porous and gutless next to Kurt Vonnegut’s “God damn it, you’ve got to be kind.” And it reveals the inherent deceit of nice. If you’re “being nice” to someone, you’re not being honest. You’re humoring a person you don’t want to be with and I don’t think I can trust you. Especially when you’re flattering a person one minute and talking shit about that same person when they leave the room. But if you’re “being kind” to someone, you are legitimately trying to understand where another person is coming from and you are willing to change your mind. You are also willing to persuade the person who is so determined to hate.

I’m not interested in being nice. I’m interested in being kind. I’m interested in having conversations with people who have the confidence to walk down a two-way street built on respect.

My thoughts exactly.

Praying for College Students? 10-10-10


So, apparently there is this thing called 10-10-10.  On August 10th, 2012, at 10AM, for 10 minutes, people are supposed to pray for all of the students headed off to college in a few weeks.

I never understood things like this.  I mean, I don’t believe prayer works, but even if I were to lend some legitimacy to prayer as an idea, are prayers which are done at a certain time, by many people, about a particular thing supposed to be more powerful?

Is this akin to getting a bunch of people to sign a petition to the president? (please sign that, BTW,if you already have not.)

Well, let’s take a look at Matthew 18:19 (ISV):

Furthermore, I tell you with certainty that if two of you agree on earth about anything you request, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven,

So, the book of Matthew claims that any two people who get together for a cause, and pray (appeal?) to sweet baby Jesus (or perhaps in his grown up avatar of old-bearded-white-guy.  Sort of like The Dude, but not as cool) then he shall do your bidding.  Something like that.  I personally never gave much thought to mentally controlling the universe through imaginary friends.

Image from the TV show ‘God, the Devil, and Bob.’ Apparently God (right) is an old hippie and Satan (left) was me in grad school. Except I drink beer. And I don’t have horns. Maybe.

What is clear here is that such a thing as 10-10-10 is not intended primary as a petition to the lord and creator of the universe.  It is intended as social media.  It is intended as a media campaign to get people to think about something.

Just not to do anything.

Because there is no reason, empirical, logical, etc, to think that prayer can accomplish anything.  Rather than waste time praying, we need to do.

And there are things we can do to help freshmen starting in college.  Hopefully, we have already worked towards giving them the best high school education we could, including excellent intellectual foundations in science, writing, and study habits.  Hopefully their parents, friends, and the world around them generally have given them good models for rational thinking, self-challenging, and emotional strength.

But now that there are people going off to be more independent, most for the first time, we can begin trusting them now.  We have to start thinking of them as adults, treating them as adults, and give them the wisdom of adult understanding of the world.

This means a healthy scientifically-based understanding of sexuality and safety.  It means at least a basic understanding of personal finances.  This means expectation of leaving your likely-parochial worldview; a preparedness to meet and interact with people with vastly different worldviews than they know.  It means these and many more things.

But in general, if we are concerned with students and young people in general, we need to be working, not praying, to make the world around us better.  We need to be educating ourselves, challenging our sacred or merely closely-held beliefs, and we need to address real problems head-on.

No god is going to help us.  Because if a god exists, it is clearly not interested in getting its ‘hands’ dirty.  The paltry, megalomaniacal, jealous god of many scriptures is not one I would depend on, even if I thought ‘He’ existed.  All evidence points to the only way we are going to get through this life is through mutual effort.

If I were the type of person to try and liberalize scripture to some warm-fuzzy interpretation, I would take Mt. 18:19, quoted above, as an ecumenical, almost secular message about working together.  It would mean that our actions, working together, would be the hand of some god, rather than our own effort.  But that is simply overly-metaphorical and ultimately anti-humanistic.

So, the next time I have a beer in my hand I will tip it in salute to all the new freshmen out there, as well as those getting ready to enter the “real world” at the end of the year.  Remember to challenge yourself, question your assumptions from time to time, and to get out and actually experience the world and other people.

Go out and have some (or a lot of) consensual sex, learn new things, develop a quirky hobby, listen to new music, read something not assigned by a professor, and occasionally have all night sessions of philosophical or personal discussions. In short I think students should learn, enjoy life, and transcend what they currently are.

Don’t take advice from conservative-minded people who seem afraid of “temptation” and leaving your confines of a tiny, religious, worldview.  More and more young people are leaving religion.  Let’s help that trend accelerate.  With the SSA around, I know that there are excellent people already doing so.

What do you think we can do to help students prepare for college or for life-after-college?

Poly culture is a two-way street with a memory


We here ay PolySkeptic have written about how polyamory is about figuring out what you really want and finding ways to get what you want.  We’ve also written about how it isn’t all about you.

Our little polycule–that is, those closest to me and with whom I spend most of my time–think a lot about the right way to do relationships.  We slip up, now and then, and certainly have a lot to learn, but we aren’t douchebags.  We know that not only other people have the same types of needs, desires, etc as we do, but also that when we don’t act this way the poly community around us has a memory.

You know, because we understand the basic idea of ethics and social dynamics.

Figuring out that you are actually attracted to, want to date, or are in love with more than one person is great.  Pursuing relationships with multiple people is great too, so long as you communicate and remember that they are people.  But the poly world is pretty small, and if you act like a dick it will eventually come to pass that potential partners will find out.

And eventually you will have trouble finding a date within the poly community, except, perhaps, with the other douchebags.  This inevitably leads to sub-cultures, within polyamory, of various kinds of people.  This would be a fascinating study for anthropologists.  Behavior-patterns tend to clump people into types of groups, and those who make the same kinds of mistakes will end up, in the long run, with similar people.

Because bad-behavior is co-reinforcing, I suppose.

 

What kinds of behaviors will get you in trouble?

Not wanting your partners to have other partners is not good poly etiquette.  For example, a guy wanting to collect a ‘harem’ of girlfriends, but making relationships those women have with others difficult via manipulation or some combination of rules or veto.  Veto rules really are not good, people, and this is one example of how and why.

Breaking up badly.  Ideally, when a relationship isn’t working, you should have a conversation and find a way to remain as amiable as possible.  Communication is critical when breaking up, unless some egregious harm was done by the other, in which case you can just walk away.  In the case of many break-ups, you may find that you just need to change the nature of the relationship.  We need to be able to be mature enough to face the harsh realities of love, sex, and friendship and have hard conversations.  People in the poly community around you will find out, eventually, about your bad breakup tendencies.

How do you treat your partners’ partners and their friends.  You don’t have to be friends with everyone.  You don’t have to like them.  Hell, you don’t have to pretend to like them if you don’t.  But are you honest with them? Do you give them an opportunity to impress you or do you keep a distance through some combination of intimidation, fear, and jealousy?  Do you talk badly about them to your partner? And if so, are you aware that your opinion is valid, wanted, and possibly completely wrong?

There are many more ways I could articulate, but it comes down to this; are you being a douche-nozzle? Or are you making an effort to be open, communicative, honest, and are you making an effort to understand other people involved so that your conclusions, actions, etc are informed and mature? In short, are you trying to be an adult?

In the mono world, there is enough room to treat a few people like crap and get away with it for a while, even though you should not do so.  You can simply hang out in a new crowd, move to a new part of town, etc.  But the poly world is small (but growing), and being an idiot will get around faster.  In order to have happy and healthy relationships for years to come, and be able to add new people to your life as they come around, you want to be surrounded by good people and have them respect you.  They only way to do that well is to treat your partners, friends, and acquaintances well and to strive to keep getting better.

It will not always work.  Some people simply are not ready to be adults and they will not wish to be around you anymore and they will be stuck in their world with similar people.  But in the long run they will suffer the result of that, and we can only continue to maintain our life, struggling with what we carry and remembering that the good people we meet along the way help with the heavier stuff from time to time.

And in the long run those who make worse choices will find themselves older, not wiser, and stuck in the beds they have made.  All of you out there who know people who get to the point later in life who still struggle with basic life and relationship problems know what I’m talking about.  People hide, when younger, their issues they have not dealt with and they are able to carry on without significant notice.  Those that struggle earlier with self-improvement will struggle less later, and it will show because the resulting adeptness/ineptness will become apparent.

This life is a struggle with the interaction of our issues with the issues of those around us.  There are better ways to deal with these things, and their are worse ways.  That is, there is actually an objective component to figuring out how to live well.  The test is the real world; what works.  Open and honest communication works better than lack of it.  Facing problems directly works better than avoiding them.  Treating people as complicated and real sentient beings works better than treating them as mere objects of your own desires.  The truth works better than delusions.

Now, if only the delusional could grasp that….

 

Misogynist repellant!


Inspired by Jen McCreight, I’m going to see how many of these hideous, off-putting qualities I share with most American women (especially the highly educated ones):

1. They’re fat. (Not by any sane standard, but I’m not placing bets on how sane this guy’s standard is.)

2. They’re constantly glued to their phone. (It’s better than intermittently glued… last time I tried ripping it off the superglue took off two layers of skin, so I just keep it glued on now. Makes showering a bitch.)

3. They cut their hair short. (Yup.)

5. They think being funny and witty is a quality that men love. (Be fair, the laughter is a bit misleading.)

9. They have condoms in their drawers because they expect to have random sex with strange men. (Ah yes, random sex. Basically I just walk into a crowded room and see if any penes randomly happen to slip inside me. It’s the best!)

13. They don’t know how to be sexy. (It’s true. I have no idea. Sometimes people find me sexy, and I’m gratified, but it’s rarely because of any planned effort on my part.)

16. They wear pajamas in public. (Only sometimes!)

18. Their idea of travel is going to the beach or France. (Indeed, my idea of travel incorporates both pleasing geographical features and unfamiliar cultures. I’m such a whore.)

20. They are proud to date multiple guys at the same time, as if they were men. (It’s… uh… I just don’t even know what to say to that one.)

24. They make lame excuses for not putting effort into their appearance. (Technically I do put effort into my appearance: I put on clothes every day, usually earrings too, and I quite often put a little product in my hair. But, as with “fat,” I suspect this guy and I are using totally different scales.)

30. On their way home from work, they put on dirty sneakers that don’t match their outfit. (In the summertime it’s Chacos instead of sneakers.)

33. They insist on eating pizza or otherwise fattening food after a night of binge drinking. (Sometimes before, too!)

34. They’re obsessed with cupcakes. (It’s true. I love cupcakes. I’m not sure why this is an issue with this guy, but taking in this and #33, maybe he thinks women properly feminine women have unique limbic systems, lacking the appreciation of fats and sugars that men and us slobby American whores have?)

35. They care more about maintaining their career than a good home. (I write papers while my husband cleans. Thinking about how much that would piss this guy off makes me giggle.)

36. They rarely wear high heels. (I’m trying to phase them out completely!)

And now, a couple that don’t apply to me, but that shattered the Ironometer:

39. They are uncomfortable in their own skin. (Nothing says ‘uncomfortable in your own skin’ like maintaining a fairly natural appearance, wearing shoes and clothes that feel good, and enjoying the pleasures of tasty foods.)

42. They go on and on about the stupidest shit. (HAhahaha… awwww.)

Because I’m polyamorous…


Ian Cromwell has been running a series of essays submitted to him entitled “Because I’m an atheist…” and I have been reading them for a while.  Today, my answer went up, which caused me to think about the implications of being polyamorous.

Because I’m polyamorous, I don’t have to pretend to be anything other than what I am.  I live such that if I meet someone I’m interested in, no matter how I’m interested in, I don’t have to nudge that interest into “appropriate” directions.  I don’t have to avoid friendships with people to whom I am attracted, nor do I have to suppress feelings of attraction, which in the long run often leads to feelings of resentment and often clandestine sexual relationships which destroy relationships when they don’t have to.

I get to love each person according, not to some pre-scripted appropriate way, but to how I actually do want to love them.  All I need is them to have mutual desires, open communication about said desires to my other partners, and the time and inclination to pursue them.

It also means that I get to be who I am, completely.  My wife and girlfriend both know I find other women attractive, but because they know this they know that the affection I show to them is genuine and authentic.  I’m not in a situation where all of my affection is tunneled towards one person, and they have to wonder if I’m only doing it because I have to;  because I have nowhere else to act on such feelings.

As such, because I’m polyamorous there is more grounds for security on my relationships.  See, rather than threaten my relationships, my (as well as my partners’) ability to pursue other people for friendship, hookups, or possibly a new relationships means that if I stay with someone, I really want to be with them.  With (serial, especially) monogamy, it is too easy just to keep holding onto a relationship because you are not sure if you will have another one available(which, of course, is not a good reason to stay in a relationship!).

The big threat for monogamy is often other people.  With polyamory, other people is the rule and so that threat is made mostly impotent.  Of course, interpersonal issues may still arise (as they do with monogamy), but ideally when that other person comes around and draws your partner’s eye, you know they will still come back to you again and again.

Because I’m polyamorous I have been forced to mature emotionally (specifically concerning jealousy), develop better communication skills, and think more about the differences between what we actually want and what we decide is good for us.  It is clear to me that most people want to be with more than one person sexually, romantically, etc.  What is not clear to me is why so many people are monogamous.

Because I’m polyamorous, I have developed a keener eye about how we, as a culture, think about relationships, love, and sex.  So, because I’m polyamorous, I have a better perspective on romance, sex, and relationships than most monogamous people.

Ultimately, because I’m polyamorous, I write about polyamory so that more people can understand why this lifestyle is so wonderful, challenging, and worth every ounce of effort.