So yesterday, while visiting my mom for Thanksgiving, something amusing happened. After dinner, while sitting around and watching some TV and whatnot I got up to get my phone which was charging in the kitchen. By some irrelevant idiosyncrasy of social interaction it came to me to give reason for my getting up, and I said that I had to check my phone for text messages from my girlfriend. This brought some degree of mirth to a guest with whom I was barely acquainted, and she made some comment about how funny I am.
Because, you know, my fiance was right next to me. I’m obviously making some joke about my girlfriend which only exists for the sake of such jokes. I couldn’t actually, like in real life, have a girlfriend and a fiance as well. And even if I was that kind of douche bag, I would not make such an announcement with my doting fiance so close by, as that would be inhuman. What kind of monster am I?
And this is a phenomenon I have noticed for many years among the normals. There are these jokes about girlfriends, flirting between couples, and so forth which exists at the surface of monogamous life. Especially if some drinks are being served, there is a hilarity about these comments.
But only when it’s a joke.
I did not correct her in her mistake that I was joking. I did not say “Actually, I really am texting my girlfriend. In fact she is my fiance’s girlfriend as well.” This is because not only was I so amused by the moment that I didn’t really think about it, but by the time it occurred that some consciousness-raising would be possible, the moment had passed. And so it passed as a mere joke, to be forgotten.
But had I done so, I imagine that it would have dropped with some weight on the room. Yes, my mo knows about Gina, but she does not exactly advertise my uncommon lifestyle to the world.
So what is it about this levity of non-monogamy in the normal world while its reality is so often threatening, strange, and jealousy-inducing? Why do normal monogamous people find it so funny to joke about straying but find it so, well, scary in reality?
I’m sorry to say, I don’t have any solid answers to this question right now. I think that it is sufficient to make the observation and allow it to sit on my mind for a little while. Perhaps I’ll some up with something brilliant this weekend.
Or, I’m just to lazy to compose such brilliance right now. Whatever works for you, my dear reader.
I was just about to watch a new episode of Parks and Recreation, which is a show I enjoy watching (in part because I have appreciated Amy Poehler since the days of Upright Citizens Brigade), and of course I ran into an ad. It’s pretty unavoidable on Hulu.com. Now, usually I ignore the ad and wait for the show to start, but in this case it caught my eye.
No, not because it looked particularly good, not because it looked like it would be one of those movies that is so bad it’s good, but because it just makes me feel shame for our culture and I was left with my jaw hanging in disappointment.
Here’s the trailer. Watch it if you like, but I’ll summarize what’ important below.
OK, so two male spies who work together are dating the same girl. They find out, and decide to go about dating her and let her pick which one to choose (because she has to choose, of course). And of course they will simply go about their business as they would have otherwise and if she does end up picking one or the other they’ll simply go on with their lives, right? Not so much. This is Hollywood, remember? The world of sensationalized conservative sex values.
So, naturally the men will try to compete with each other, try to trip each other up, and hilarity will ensue. But they are super Hollywood-style spies, so they have like access to guns, bombs, and planes, so of course it will turn into a militaristic competition for who will get the girl, all with explosions, car chases, and of course spying.
Because, you know, they could not share. No, good looking, intelligent, and talented men are way too immature, insecure, and territorial for that. And besides, to prove their manhood they will have to demonstrate that one is better than the other, making the unaware woman for whom they fight a prize, rather than a person.
She should, of course, lose them both, because obviously neither is prepared for an adult relationship. As to how they actually resolve it, and whatever stupid moral lessons are implied, I will have to find out second-hand. I will not be seeing this movie.
Perhaps if someone else does they can inform me of what happens.
I am just in a great mood! I had such a wonderful weekend, and I want to share it with the world.
Being polyamorous with someone as wonderful as my dear Ginny is amazing in itself. I feel very lucky to have someone who fits me so well, who is so beautiful inside and out, and who I can expect to spend a fun, nurturing, and challenging (in the good way) life. But recently we met a couple who just got married, and since they are also polyamorous (and they are not exactly a couple; there is a third in there), we started to spend some time with them over the last couple of months or so. And just this last few days it blossomed into a great situation where I find myself beginning what I hope will be another intimate and meaningful relationship. Of course there is no way to know at this point whether it will be successful or not, but my instincts are good. I am able to be objective enough to know that intense emotions can cloud judgment and foresight, but I have every reason to believe that all the ingredients are quality, the chemistry is right, and our desire to create something awesome is mutual.
In other words, I met someone I really like, and am feeling really positive about it. (I have not asked her if I can use her name here, so for now she will remain nameless). In fact, not only has my fortune been good, my fortune hit the jackpot and doubled. In addition to the one nameless (girlfriend? Hmm, I guess we have not discussed titles yet) woman I just left less than an hour ago, I have also started to see another woman who I clicked with very easily. Just yesterday (Saturday) I had a fantastic first date with someone I had met a couple of years ago (before my brief stint in Atlanta), but she recently discovered me on OKCupid (where all the awesome poly peeps are, apparently) and we went out and have a fantastic time. That on top of seeing my new lady friend both Friday and tonight…I’m a little worn out, I have to say….
And on top of that, Ginny is having a great time with her new boy toy…ok, I don’t know what to call him either. I suppose all that will work itself out in time. We are just happy and evolving little poly family here, and I am loving every minute of it.
For those of you who think that this polyamory thing cannot work, that it is destructive and can only lead to hurting people, all I have to say is bullshit! I am happy to see Ginny happy and enjoying herself with another person, and she is happy to see me happy and enjoying myself with another person. (This phenomenon is what is referred to as compersion, or sometimes as frubble. Google is your friend). We love each other, are affectionate and open with each other, and we have other people we care about and have sex with. And, while ultimately I just want people to find what makes them happy, fulfills their desires, etc I think that many monogamous people who say that they could not do this are really missing out on something awesome. But, again, I’m riding high on emotion and am, perhaps, not seeing it all clearly at the moment; I just know that right now I am feeling the poly high.
So, now that I am on the verge of finding a way to build three relationships (of varying significance and intensity), I find that I’m looking forward to it. What more could a person want than more love, friendships, and hot, hot sex with sexy people?
I was responding to a comment from my post yesterday about elevatorgate, just now, and realized part of what put a twist in my panties about this issue originally. And while I think that I am in agreement with Rebecca Watson almost completely, and thank her for her consciousness raising (assuming she won’t mind the continual use of that term associated with her new BFF Richard Dawkins), I also think that there is a tangential issue that all of these conversations touch on that have been meaningful for me for a long time.
So, while trying to slowly put behind us the specific issue of Rebecca Watson and her elevator friend, I want to address the general issue of being creepy in a sex-positive world full of happy, horny, sluts.
It is essentially this: There is nothing wrong with asking for sex.
I have read, in the last few days, so many comments about proper ways to hit on women that don’t sexualize them, that respect them, and that will not creep them out. I get it; make sure you are in a safe context, speak to them respectfully, and and don’t just proposition them, but talk to them first. The last part throws me off a little. There is nothing inherently wrong with asking a person, in a safe environment and with appropriate words, to have sex with you. You just have to be prepared to hear and accept a no, because that is likely what will happen in most (but not all) cases.
Before this issue arose, I would have not done what elevator guy did, but mostly for pragmatic reasons. Whether this makes me privileged, insensitive, or whatever, the fact is that I realize that it just would not work, and is therefore a waste of my time. I would have not understood the fear that many women would feel in that situation because I, as has been pointed out, have some blinders on.
Fair enough. Blinders partially removed, trying to understand better, but I still have concerns for how this privilege of mine interacts with a world of happy, horny, sluts.
The world I want to live in; a slut-friendly world.
Many commenters, on Pharyngula and elsewhere, pointed out that men do not have the right to assume that any interaction with a woman gives them the right to assume the possibility of sexual encounters. That’s right, we should not assume anything. But this is different than saying they don’t have the right to ask, so long as they are willing to accept a no without feeling rejected. This distinction is critical, because it highlights where he rub here is. Asking is not assuming. In fact, it is perfectly flush with skepticism; you don’t know something so you investigate. I think that many so-called “elevator guy apologists” are probably trying to articulate this, while still often missing the factor of context. People talking past one-another on the internet, once again.
The issue is this; what would be acceptable for one woman would be creepy for another. In other words, just like with the Schroedinger’s rapist issue, we have what I call the similar problem of Schroedinger’s slut; we don’t know (in most cases) when the proposition will be acceptable or creepy for another person. So, once you find the appropriate place and time, it’s carpe diem time. Life is too short to live life in fear. So, if you meet a girl or a guy (or both) at a party, a bar, a club, or elsewhere where they are not physically trapped, then ask what you desire! If you are respectful, open, honest, and so forth and are still seen as creepy, there is nothing you could have done to not be creepy. That person might just have issues with their sexuality, if you did in fact ask respectfully and in a safe space.
I’m extending this issue into the realm of sex-positivity and sluthood, not common bar/party meetings of people where the normal vanilla rules apply. In my ideal world, a proposition of sex between relative strangers is morally and socially acceptable, even if it is unlikely to succeed. I still don’t do it often, because I am often in vanilla circles and realize that many people are sex negative and view sluthood as a bad thing. But at a kink club, polyamory meetup, or a swing club?
Different rules.
But creepiness is still an issue, and that is what I am curious about. See for us, one thing we have to learn is how to hear “no.” And how to say no without feeling bad about it. That is difficult as well.
A Memorable Lesson from Polyamory 101
A few years back I was at a polyamory meeting where had this exercise which has stuck with me ever since. We stood up and walked around the room asking anyone and everyone for permission to kiss them. Male, female, old, young, etc. Everyone had to say “no” (even if you wanted to say “yes!”) so that we could get accustomed to hearing and saying no. The reason for this is that we learn that there is no harm in asking. Hearing no is not so bad, and neither is saying it. Some people may think there is harm in asking, and others feel bad saying no. That’s just immaturity and prudishness. By all means be a prude if that makes you happy. But even in that case you can still say no without it being an issue.
I have been to a few conferences over the years. Financial struggles make it hard to do so more, especially now. And while at a conference among godless heathens and (often) libertines, I sometimes meet more freaky people, and the only way I found this out was by asking. Just not while in an elevator and alone. But I will not be shamed by my admitted privilege into not asking at all, as some voices in the last few days seem to imply. That is a form of sex-negativity, and is not a step towards health for our community or for any individuals.
Bottom line: We all need to try and be aware of contexts that present potential dangers and violations of respect, but there is a distinction between the context and the request for sex. We all, as a culture, need to be able to ask for what we want, be prepared to hear a no (or a yes), and we need to remember that people have different boundaries that we cannot predict upon sight. When we cross other people’s boundaries, we can apologize; and when someone crosses ours we can realize that they may have meant no disrespect.
And when people do act disrespectfully without concern for our discomfort or boundaries, we have the right to call them out on it. I am in full support of people who cross boundaries being educated, especially if they display no concern for having done so. Let’s hope that Rebecca Watson’s education of us will be a prevention of potential harm that could happen. Let’s hope that nothing more serious than what she experienced ever happens at a conference.
And let’s also hope that the sluts in our community have some hot sex with each-other.
I am a daily reader of The Friendly Atheist, as well as a number of other blogs, and I usually agree with Hemant on a number of topics. Today, I don’t agree with his (probably tentative) reaction to this post on his blog today. Here’s his (again, probably tentative) conclusion:
There’s nothing wrong with waiting.
But there’s nothing wrong with having safe sex before marriage, either.
Why do I disagree with this? Because I think there may be something very harmful about waiting. Further, having sex before marriage may be the only way to have a fully satisfying sex life after marriage. That is, one might be satisfied, but perhaps not as happy as they could be sexually, without having tested the various grounds out there.
Experience and Communication
Sexuality is complicated. When we are young and inexperienced, we not only don’t know what to do, we really don’t know what we want. And even if we know what we want, that does not imply that we can know what others want, especially if those things are not the same (or incompatible). The ability to give to others what they need sexually to some degree depends on sufficient experience with different types of sexuality and our experience with how to respond to those needs. I doubt that anyone can be prepared for this with only one partner for whom they wait until marriage.
And, perhaps most importantly, when we are inexperienced we rarely communicate about sex, especially during the act itself. Does that feel good? Do you want me to do that harder, softer, or not at all? Would you like to be spanked, or to spank me? All legitimate questions. And there are many more questions in addition to these, of course. Without prior experience to feed off of, how would people know to ask such questions?
It takes more than two, baby!
Perhaps the greatest tragedy is to have two inexperienced people trying to figure sexuality out together. This is not to say that two people with no experience cannot figure it out, but it will take time, patience, and possibly some research. Most importantly, it takes honesty and a willingness to push ourselves. We cannot find what lies deep inside if we are afraid to look there.
But let’s be honest here; most people who decide to wait until marriage are coming from religious backgrounds with conservative views about sexuality. There will be exceptions, of course, but this phenomenon of waiting is primarily religion-driven, I’d be willing to bet. People who were brought up to believe that sex is sinful, except in marriage (and possibly even within marriage, if it gets kinky), are the ones doing the waiting.
These are not people to likely discuss their sexuality in the open, even with their new spouse. They have become so used to repressing the topic, that in order to then suddenly be sex-positive will be a rare exception and not the rule by any measure of the term. Further, because of their lack of experience with other lovers, they will not even know what it is they are lacking. This is why people need to find themselves a more experienced ethical slut to help them along before they move onto marriage. Hell, they may need that before they are ready for a serious relationship.
Finding it too late?
And what happens in situations like this, where young people wait until marriage, is that perhaps they get married too soon, or to the wrong person, because they don’t know better. How could they know? They have little experience to draw from, remember? And then they find themselves married, perhaps enjoying the sex, but after some time they feel as if something is missing.
With a likely inexperienced lover, they may have desires that they don’t know how to express. In this situation, most people will not explore their sexuality until after years of pushing back desires that will seem abnormal, wrong, or perhaps sinful. This is probably why so many people get married only to come out years later as homosexual. But in many other cases people have a vanilla (that is, “normal”) sex life until they discover their inner kinks later on, and then you see them as they should have found themselves while much younger.
I cannot tell you how many people I have met that say that they wish they knew what they did now, about themselves sexually specifically, 20 or 30 years before. I meet people in the polyamory communities who only opened up to their kinky side when they were in their 40s, 50s, or later. Imagine all the years they could have been enjoying sexuality more passionately, ecstatically, and with more people if they just didn’t hold back. And no, not all these people did wait until marriage, but how could a person who does so avoid this fate? Again, some will avoid it even if they do wait, but most will not.
Everyone should have been exploring their sexuality as teenagers, young adults, and ideally exposed to sex-positive environments as children. If children grow up knowing that sex is a healthy thing, they will be able to find what they are into easier as they grow up. And if they get a chance to be sexual as they grow up, of course progressing on their own terms and as they grow comfortable, then they will be able to know that a person is sexually compatible with them.
I mean, how awful would it be to make a commitment to someone who you are not sexually compatible with? Granted, they don’t have to be monogamous with them (although those that save themselves are more likely to attempt monogamy, I’d bet…at least in the short-term), but to be married to someone who you can’t be your sexual-self with? How many people are trapped in loveless and/or sexless (or, with unsatisfiable sex) marriages. And of course they can just get a divorce, right?
Because people with conservative sexual ideas tend to be OK with that too….
No, do not save yourself for marriage. Marry someone (if you marry at all) who fits your sexuality. If you want orgies every weekend, marry someone who is into that. If you want plain old missionary position for 50 years, then by all means at least test out the product before you buy it. Hell, even vanilla sex can be better or worse with the right or wrong person.
You don’t have to be a slut. But find a way to explore your sexuality, and to teach your children to explore their sexuality, in healthy ways. Don’t let them repress their sexuality in the name of some absurd sacredness to sex that is somehow ruined by having it. For Dionysus’ sake, have some sex, and enjoy it!
I’ve been thinking recently about conversations. Polite conversations. You know the kind I mean; you are at a dinner party with people you do not know well, having lunch with some acquaintances, or maybe you just popped into the local tavern for an ale or two and struck up conversation with some other people doing the same. The circumstances are immense in number, but the basic situation is the same; you are talking with people casually, and polite conversation will evolve into touching on topics of all sorts.
There are a set of unspoken rules to such things, right? They are not written (nor will I attempt to write them now), but they are accepted and understood (to some extent). And while those involved in such discussions are usually aware of the mental composition of ideas in relation to other non-verbalized thoughts, most of what they are thinking is left unsaid. We can’t say everything we think.
There is that filter that I–as well as most people–have which allows me to say one thing and not several others that arose to consciousness but not quite to my tongue. And some of those alternative thoughts remain in consciousness, treading the waters of my mind while waiting to sink or swim as the polite conversation continues to evolve. The presence of these unsaid thoughts, in adjacent position to the conversation perceived in my mind as I listen and contribute, will sometimes form a theme of parallel thoughts that are left unsaid but play like a harmonizing phrase to the conversation shared by the society in which I find myself. That’s how it often is for me, anyway.
But what I long for, what I hope for even, is when those silent themes emerge among the greater score. When, while the orchestra of conversation begins to grow and increase in complexity, the whine of a violin makes it’s way into the background, playing with the theme in a way that is both beautiful and sublime. And, eventually, that violin silences the rest of the orchestra, and plays itself while every ear perks to hear it in its quiet grace. The music of conversation evolves such to set the stage for such moments.
And they often leave us silent.
But that silence is not always appreciation, but is sometimes a tumultuous composition being raised in the the mind of another who does not see the only the beauty of this moment. They may feel discomfort, anger, annoyance, insecurity, indifference, or even a mad desire to hear more and to repeat the phrasing with another instrument–perhaps an oboe–but does not do so.
Oh what beautiful music we humans are capable of playing, but rarely we do. Just like with the real world and music, it is often the monotonous babble of popular tones that drown out most of the world. Subtlety and rarity is left, as Nietzsche commented, to the rare.
Out of metaphor
Enough of music metaphors. What the hell am I talking about?
One of the things I like about such social situations is the uncertainty of what will transpire. The anticipation of either heated argument, genuine curiosity and interpersonal intimacy, or polite indifference or discomfort. It’s almost, well, sexy.
As a person who self-identifies as polyamorous and an atheist, I run into this type of communication anticipation on these two fronts from time to time, and I relish the expectation. It’s not completely unlike meeting an attractive woman and, while talking with her, noticing her body through the clothes she wears, wondering if she is also trying not to let me notice her own interest while I try to thrust away images that my mind creates of the anticipation of passion thus far unrequited. I eagerly watch the facial queues for subtle emotional indicators, body language, and changes in tone of voice as certain subjects are hinted at, caressed, and occasionally penetrated. Yes, a conversation is a lot like the anticipation of sex, which makes good conversation a lot like sex.
Good conversation–and good sex–is about the exploration of the other person. It is about opening up and letting people in while trying to maintain the awareness of their needs as they seek to fulfill yours. It is about saying what you think, hearing what is said, and responding to what is actuallysaid rather than what you wanted to hear. It is about actual communication, and not merely saying your bit and then having done with it.
Wait, I thought I was done with metaphor….
*sigh*
I know, but in a sense is not all language metaphor?
You may find yourself with some people you don’t really know very well, and some talk about current events comes up. Perhaps it is Iraq, the healthcare bill, or local politics, but eventually something will approach a more sensitive and controversial topic. Perhaps it is a comment about the recent discovery of documents that indicate that the current pope was responsible for covering up child abuse; perhaps it is playful flirtation between two couples who meet at a bar and play with some rising sexual tension and making jokes about swapping or some other arrangement; or perhaps it is the discussion of polygamy as a force for female subjugation in some FLDS and Moslem communities, and why don’t you ever see a woman with four husbands rather than the other way around.
And then the voice inside me says well, I know this woman….
And that is the sort of thought, that lonely whine of that violin, which is rarely played.
Reactions
Some people are wound tight. It may be traumatic experiences with either sex, relationships, or religion. it might just be that some people need to just loosen up a little, but I really can’t generalize while being fair to each person’s circumstances. What I can say is that in my experience some people react quite defensively, even if they have learned to do so quite subtly, to their comfort zones being poked at.
The part of me that is all about free speech, intelligent conversation, and personal growth wants to merely dismiss this as cowardice or emotional weakness, but that is not really fair nor true in many cases. I cannot know the cause of such discomfort or caution in the face of certain topics, but I am almost always interested in knowing what those causes are.
It is the intimacy of it that I love. And it is a desire for this intimacy that has caused some uncomfortable relationships in my life. The reasons are sometimes clear to me, especially in hindsight. I have been a person who has been closed off behind my own fears, defensive and reactive at certain questions, perceptions of criticism, etc. But my desire to grow past this has left me sensitive to the behavior in others, perhaps to the point of projecting it when it is not there? (I cannot say).
Perhaps, but I have trouble imagining that I never recognize it accurately. In at least one prior relationship, I am certain that I was correct in this conclusion, and I think that it was part of the reason that it is a prior relationship rather than a continuing one.
But I’m straying too far from the point.
Some topics of conversation will bore, frighten, or annoy people. And often this is for good reason, but still those reasons are interesting in themselves. And it may not always lead to a meta-conversation, but it may lead in that direction in some cases. But I enjoy the ability to discuss things of moderate or ultimate concern; philosophical discussions, details about personal experiences or beliefs, or passionate defenses and debates about things of personal stake and interest.
It is in these moments of personal insecurity where intimacy grows. There is a vulnerability about it, but that is what makes it rare and (perhaps thus) beautiful. It is scary to trust to open up, especially to people we don’t know well, but there is a certain point where I think it is empowering and powerful to do so. And in such conversations truth may occasionally be born, and we may find ourselves open to new possibilities and expand our boundaries a little at a time.
I may be wrong; there may be a god. I may be wrong; polyamory may be ultimately unhealthy. I may be wrong about many things. So may you, and so let’s actually discuss them rather than sit silently and let those beautiful phrasings play silently in our heads while we try to imagine what melody plays in our neighbor’s head. How often do people assume things only to find they are wrong when they actually talk with other people.
(How many times have I had to explain the definition of atheism/agnosticism or explain what polyamory is about if not a fear of commitment)
How many times has Glenn Beck sat and really listened to a progressive or liberal without replacing their music with his own biases? How many times has Keith Olbermann listened to the music of the Tea Party people? And no, I’m not advocating the view that necessarily some ideal in between opposing sides is always where the truth is. “Teach the Controversy” is a joke when there is no controversy except that which is contrived for political or religious effect. Listening does not compel respect for the idea listened to. Respect has to be earned by reason and evidence, not merely demanded.
And while I may agree more often with Olbermann than Glenn Beck (who I think may be mentally ill), I still listen, really listen, to what is being said. I only hope for the same.
Conversation avoids misunderstanding and mis-communication while it builds intimacy. It works in relationships, religion, politics, and even sex.
We all need to communicate better, including myself.
From a book I just finished reading called Crimes Against Logic by Jamie Whyte:
Those who take religion, politics, and sex seriously do not adhere to the general prohibition on discussing these topics. And they don’t take offense when they are shown to be wrong.
If you start to feel during a discussion that you are not so much incorrect as insensitive, then you are probably dealing with a respectable bigot.
Only a thug would expose them.
And then he ends the book with the following:
Perhaps it is better to get on with your family and friends, to avoid embarrassment, or to comfort yourself with fantasies than to believe the truth. But those who approach matters in this way should give up any prentensions to intellectual seriousness. They are not genuinely interested in reality.
…
Separating intellectual from moral seriousness is harder than those who are intellectually frivolous may care to admit.
Interesting thoughts. No need to comment further, I think.
Skepticism, Properly Applied 