The Affliction of Getting What You Want

I frequently hear complaints from polyfolk about OKCupid. Women complain that they get too many messages. While the men say that women never reply to theirs. Leaving the first complaint aside, I want to address the latter.

Backing up a little, I activate my OKC account for short periods of time when I just damn feel like it. I deactivate it because I'm not "out" to my family or the godly community where my children go to school and trick-or-treat. But when I do frequent the dating site I average 30-40 messages/day. Or rather, messages from 30-40 different men, some of them send multiple messages. I reply to most, though I did finally put a disclaimer on my profile specifying that I will NOT reply to messages that only say: "Hi," "How are you?" or "You're hot". (Groan.)

That being said, I think the men I respond to are more than a little surprised that I am returning their message. And given the circumstance, they should be. I mean, let's face it, I am hot. I'm usually more than generous with my alternate-identity email, and they will contact me there usually as soon as I give it to them. I find at this point that their enthusiasm dwindles rather quickly. Is this because I'm boring you? Have I taken away the challenge? I'm confused as to why interest suddenly disappears. Maybe it's because now I'm a real person instead of that sexy, unattainable model they had originally imagined me to be? What they thought they wanted turns out not to be what they wanted after all.

But these are not the guys I really want to talk about anyway. There is another type that I have encountered on more than one occasion. This is the guy that actually does want to talk to me via text or whatever. And we'll have a pretty good conversation to the point where I think that I can tell him what I actually think. (Not that I don't always say what I think, but I reserve the nitty-gritty for when I think someone is actually listening to me.) And this will go okay for a few days.

Then suddenly, POOF! They disappear. I mean, they're still there. I can see when they're online. I can see what you're posting on fb. I know you're there. You've just stopped responding. What exactly the fuck is this about? I mean, you're on a dating website. You complain --more than likely-- that women don't respond to your messages. And here you have a beautiful woman who has similar interests that wants to talk to you, but you ignore her? Why bother to be on a dating website at all if you don't even want what you thought you wanted when you finally get it?

True, I could blame myself. I could say that I'm just not that interesting, or I'm deluded about my looks. Or, I'm one of those crazy chicks who digs her talons into a man the second he shows the slightest interest. But I know that's not true. I have people I trust who tell me so.

The affliction of getting what you want is: now what do I do with it? To be honest, I don't really understand this problem. I actually think through what will or could happen when I achieve my goals. Sure, it might be new and scary, but I've prepared myself ahead of time for this possibility. I might proceed with caution, but I don't suddenly cut someone off because I'm a big pussy!

Conclusion: Boys, make up your goddamn minds.

Also, every time I run up against this Type, it just makes me that much more thankful for my wonderful, amazing partners.

What Pisses Me Off About the Hunger Games

Now, before you get all psycho-fan-geek on me, I'm as Hunger-Game-crazed as they come. My pre-pub paperback copies of books 1 and 2 are respectfully mutilated. And Mockingjay I listened to on audio book, which concludes with a rare interview with Suzanne Collins. Highly recommended, if you haven't yet ventured into the world of audio books.

Additionally, if you're paying attention at all, I've adopted HG's charmingly clueless protagonist, Katniss, as my alter-ego. There may be some Freudian interpretation to my chosen persona, but let's move on.

There are many reasons I believe Collins' trilogy to be one of the finest pieces of recent literature. But for the sake of not losing every reader to my geeked-out drool session, I'll sum up. 

Important themes: challenge the established system, whether it's "good" or "evil"; human connections are messy, but ultimately make life worth living; does the end justify the means?; what you are told should always be run through the filter of what you feel is right or wrong. 

It is this outside-the-established-boundaries thinking that makes HG so popular, like so many cherished iconic stories. The audience has an easier time imagining how "things could be different" because it's someone else's reality. It's much easier to see how some other person, culture, way of thinking is flawed than to evaluate your own, from within the bubble.

This is no easy task. In real life, it can be difficult to recognize that you are even confined within a bubble. Oftentimes, breakthroughs require a catalyst. An event that pushes you beyond your limitations, out on the ledge, so to speak. Or sometimes, you realize the small-ness of your world when you come into contact with someone from another culture. And you start to ask yourself: why do I do it this way? Why do I do it at all? 

The reason is because you didn't know you had a choice. Culture (and oftentimes religion) keeps you within certain restrictions and breaking out of these can mean isolation, rejection, and in mythical contexts, eternal damnation.

Novels like HG help us wake up to our bubbles. Our pre-programmed actions that we run through without realizing it. The structures we use to make our decisions, not realizing there are other structures available, or (wonder of wonders!) that we can make our own!

While I will always have a soft spot for all things Katniss, Collins fails in one very obvious way. She questions the very fabric of society (her's is fictional, but still), but she doesn't question the possibilities of relationships structures. I mean, it's okay if we start talking about equality, peace, (and in the real world) gay marriage, and freedom from religion. But monogamy? This isn't even brought into question. Collins assumes that Katniss will have to choose between Peeta and Gale. Or, at least, that her faux-mance with Peeta means there is no possibility of her being with Gale. A big assumption for a fictional future dystopia.

Oh, Katniss is kissing Peeta on national television? Gale must be sad, jealous. Oh, Gale is sneaking kisses in the woods with Katniss? Because if Snow and the Capitol found out, then it must mean she doesn't really love Peeta. There's no way she could truly love both. (And for Katniss's sake, she doesn't really love either, but realizes she needs both to survive. But that's another story.)

Others have written about the poly/mono implications in HG and more recently Catching Fire. Some have focused on gender issues, and have even made good points. 

But what really pisses me off about the HG is the assumption. The assumption of the author. The assumption of the readers. We're thinking progressively here, people ... oh, but not quite that progressively. You couldn't possibly have a love triangle without conflict. I mean, how much would that bring in at the box office?

As long as these assumptions prevail in our entertainment, it will cement the mass populace in their comfortable bubbles.

In Collins's defense, I appreciate her ending where (SPOILER ALERT!!!) Katniss ultimately chooses neither. She is content to allow things to be as they are, as long as no one is getting hurt, which I would argue was her position all along. 

If I see one more Team Gale or Team Peeta, I think I'll puke.

Embracing Limitations: Or, What I Learned at Polycon

You don’t get to choose your parents, your metamours, or your triggers. Triggers? Those are the people, the situations, the news, the events that cause you to become irrationally angry, jealous, scared. Triggers cause minor or major panic attacks, and often inspire me to lunge for the Xanax.

Some triggers you are aware of. You know when to expect their arrival. When he spends the night at her house; when everyone goes out together on the night I work; getting cut off on the highway; or, mentally calculating the best price on vitamin brands at the grocery while two over-tired children scream at each other, attracting the attention of everyone within a 10 ft. radius. (Not that I’ve ever experienced that before …)

Then there are the times when triggers sneak up on you. Surprise! It’s not okay for you to wear the dress I bought you on a date with him. Surprise! Roses? My stupid crazy ex-boyfriend used to buy me roses! How could you? Surprise! I’m okay with you dating girls but not guys!

Some might call these weaknesses, but instead, I’ve upgraded their status to “limitations”. Limitations are the boundaries (permanent or temporary) within which we can work effectively. Trying to work outside our limitations only brings negative consequences. For example, a food allergy can be a personal limitation. Sure that cake, ice cream, garbage pail full of everything you want to engorge on looks great. But indulging in your personal limitation will only bring undesired consequences. It is the same with relationship limitations.

Working With Limitations

Does this mean it is impossible to move beyond your limitations? Sometimes. There are some limitations you can work on, become better at, adapt strategies for. You can be gentler, more approachable, more intelligible, more knowledgeable. But then there are some limitations you just have to respect.

All my life I have struggled with meeting new people and going to unfamiliar places. When I was younger, my strategy was to avoid them.  As you can imagine, I was lonely and eventually my desire to change was stronger than my fear of the unknown. Recently, I was reading about a condition known as Avoidant Personality Disorder. While I do not claim to have said disorder, I do identify with some of its components.

For Avoidants, being in certain social situations, or even just around strangers, or in public at all, causes stress which produces a chemical reaction in the body. Some become paralyzed with fear, anxiety, or even panic to the point where they cannot bring themselves to go to work or the grocery store. There are different degrees of the disorder. And the goal is to work on strategies which allow the individual to perform the necessary tasks despite the chemical imbalance.

I feel this stress even just thinking about new venues and people. Sometimes the chemical reaction begins before I even get there. In many ways, I have been able to overcome some of these obstacles in no small part with the help of TheLordofDarkness.

But even now, in social situations with people I don’t know, I can feel the panic rising in my chest. Cognitively, I know there is no reason to panic, but I still feel it. And I know I’ve reached my limit when strangers (or people I’ve only just met) infiltrate my personal space bubble. It’s more than I am able to handle. This is my limitation and this is the time for me to walk away.

I’m furious with myself of course.

This past weekend, TheLordofDarkness and I attended BeyondThe Love polycon. I observed how easily he navigates through what seems to me an obstacle course of

anxiety. Him and others make friends, new partners, hookups look easy. Fun, even.  Damn, them.

Someday, with practice and lots of support from partners and friends, I may be able to work past this limitation. But for now, I know this is my stop and I get off the bus.

Embracing Limits

It’s easy to beat myself up over what I can’t do. Instead, I consciously choose to see my limitations as the other side of my strengths, the things I love about myself. I am very sensitive and take things way too personally some of the time. It is also my sensitivity that gives me a deep level of empathy for others, especially those I’m close to. 

It is my sensitivity which causes my relationships with partners and close friends to be deep, meaningful, and life-long partnerships regardless of how the structure of the relationship changes. I love this about myself. I desire and cherish these relationships. And I would never change it.

Punishing myself for not being what others are or what others expect me to be, accomplishes nothing. Forcing myself beyond what I am reasonably comfortable with only makes me miserable.

It is by embracing my limitations, and affirming them as strengths that I create space to grow. Loving and compassionate people inspire us to learn and grow. Negativity and condemnation only cause us to clam up, hide, and give up. Why shouldn’t we treat ourselves, our limitations, with kindness?

Why I Love Wildflowers: And Why You Won't Find Them on OKCupid

Janapnese Meadow Rue
Spiraea japonica

I'm a sucker for wildflowers. In fact, just know, if you are hiking with me: THIS HIKER MAKES FREQUENT STOPS. Classifying wildflowers is one of my favorite reasons to hike. Once identified, I loudly pronounce its name at every occurrence, mostly so I won't forget it. Wood-Sorrel. Rattlesnake Hawkweed. Rue-Anemone. Also, to annoy you.

Why do I love them so much? Probably for the same reason I like polyamory (and variety in general). Wildflowers are amazing because they are unexpected. There I am hiking along, tired, sweaty, thirsty. I come around a switchback and suddenly a hillside full of Brook Meadowrue takes my breath away. Meadowrues are my particular favorite.

I record the flowers I've met in my field guide, as well as the time of year and trail where I saw them. Some flowers I have seen hundreds of times. Thyme-Leaved Bluets are everywhere. Even out of season, I can recognize the wildflowers I've previously identified. In fact, it's hard for me not to see them. Because I'm looking for them.

Relationships can be this way too. (Oh, yeah, I'm also a sucker for metaphors.) What makes a finding a relationship so wonderful is when you don't really expect it. Whether it's that "friend" you've had forever who suddenly notices you, or that cute guy at work, or the ever-so-rare OKCupid matchup (does this ever really happen?!) it feels miraculous. "Wait, you feel the same way I do?"

Then there are those days, usually when it's raining, where it feels like I've hiked for miles and not spotted anything noteworthy. Hunting for the proverbial unicorn, if you will. There are many plants in my field guide that I have never and may never see.

Green Dragon
Arisaema dracontium

This makes me think of the countless hours you can spend on OKCupid and still come up with nothing. Sure, it can be frustrating, but then, most things in life happen this way. The more you look for something, the harder it seems it is to find it. Additionally, you're not going to improve your chances by making your ideal romantic partner the ever elusive Green Dragon (see photo). How I would love to see one of those some day.

Does that mean I cease hiking through the woods? If I do then my chances of spotting the Green Dragon are zero or worse. Whether hunting for plants or partners, you press on. You continue to hike, to search, to tweak your profile to attract just the right mate. And regardless of the results, keep putting one squashy wet boot in front of the other like the happy hiker you are.

What's been bending my ear lately (and I realize this is not a new problem) is the constant complaining (I think it's complaining anyway) on all forums poly about How do I find someone? Where do I meet people? Why doesn't OKCupid work? 

How do you meet someone? That's easy, go out and talk to people! Where? Anywhere that people are. They're not hard to find, shockingly. But they're probably not poly. They won't want to date me. Is this all that people are to you? Potential dates? People are like plants, there are many of them and oftentimes there are far too many of the status quo. (Damn ferns!) But that's what makes wildflowers so beautiful! They stand out. And these people, the ones who stand out, are worth meeting, whether they are potential mates or not. These are the people who challenge you and change you. They are worth endless days of hiking just to catch a glimpse of because they are so rare and beautiful.

When you are lucky enough to find that rare and beautiful flower, do you scoop it up quickly and run away into the night, laughing manically (... clearly I've been watching too much kid's television). Poaching is a real crime that state and national parks deal with, sadly. Besides depriving the plant of it's chosen environment, poachers also deprive the rest of us of their beauty. Even worse than that, in my opinion, is how relocating a wildflower converts it to a domestic flower, essentially detracting the very thing that makes it so extraordinary in the first place. The fact that it's survival does not depend on humanity at all. That it is wild.

Poaching is a dangerous habit with lovers too. Not only will the thing you desire begin to lose its desirable qualities, but, in the end, you will end up hurting the very thing you are trying to love. You will destroy it.

Which brings me to the second reason wildflowers are so beautiful. They aren't controlled, or shouldn't be. They exist for their own sake. If others receive pleasure from seeing or being with them, what a great bonus! But it's not necessary for their survival. In other words, people, the worthwhile ones anyway, are independent of others. They don't need partners and they certainly don't need you. If they allow you to tag along for a while, then count your blessings.

Thyme-Leaved Bluets
Houstonia serpyllifolia

Of course, maybe you're not cruising OKCupid for wildflowers. You'll just take any willing plant that comes along, or that fucks well. (Hmmm ... plants fucking? Evidently, I need to rethink this metaphor.) I will tell you the secret to finding wildflowers, though it only refers to people, not plants. Still trying to concoct a formula for the plants. The secret is to be a wildflower yourself. Be independent. Be the kind of person you are wanting to meet. And be satisfied to sit on a sunny hillside and wait for that determined hiker to come along. There's no guarantee how long you will have to wait, but the more beautiful you are, the harder you will be to miss.

Another secret, once you learn to spot wildflowers, you find them everywhere. Like Thyme-Leaved Bluets.

Philosophy of Love: Am I Doing It Wrong?

Ludwig Wittgenstein

A few weeks ago, The Guardian posted a story written by Giles Fraser, a British priest and journalist. The title really says it all, so here it is in it's entirety: How Ludwig Wittgenstein Helped Me Get Over My Teenage Angst. Needless to say, the title caught my eye.

Wittgenstein, being a cherished philosopher from my undergrad years. Words are a function within a larger system, and all that jazz. Bertrand Russell described him as "passionate, profound, intense and dominating". For me, it was love at first sight! Though, I admit, I have not read much of him since, and at this point he is more fantasy than anything.

In the article mentioned above, Giles details how my dreamy, handsome philosopher actually turned him toward religion. Yes, there are many faulty arguments (if you can call them that) in this article. A hot-bed for atheist bloggers. But one particular section gave me pause:

Moreover, there is no need first to develop a coherent philosophy of something in order to go on and do it. Apropos ... you don't need a philosophy of love in order to be in love.

Say what?!

Let's take that second statement first. Everyone has a philosophy of love, whether or not they realize it. No matter their orientation, kink, number of partners, age, lack of sexuality, etc. EVERYONE has one. It would be impossible to be human and not have a structure of how you approach, analyze, and ultimately behave concerning love.

The word "philosophy" may be a bit off-putting for the uninitiated. But don't run screaming just yet. From the time you were born, you were interacting with the world, developing beliefs about it, and reacting to it. As you got older and could understand language, you may have had particular worldviews and opinions thrust upon you without your knowledge. Religion would be one such worldview. Hopefully, as you became older, you used your knowledge about the world, as well as your own experiences to form a worldview, a philosophy, about what life is, how it functions, and the best way of getting along in it. This is your philosophy, most likely terribly flawed, as everyone's is, but a philosophy nonetheless.

Giles even agrees with this:

Philosophy is ... creating better intellectual maps that reflect what people are doing when they say the things they do.

In other words, there are reasons for your actions. They don't just happen randomly, even if you don't know what those reasons are. Your beliefs, values, and ideals are at the root of all your actions. 

Now let's apply this to the experience of love, whether that be the way you love your partner or the way you love your new car. (I'm looking at you, LordofDarkenss!!!) Every person has some idea of the experience of love, though our ideas about the

experience may differ extensively. We call this a universal experience because it happens to everyone, in all cultures, time periods, across the scales of skill or intelligence levels. To love is part of what it means to be human.

The first time you fell "in love", kissed someone you were attracted to, or had someone profess their love for you, you had a profound feeling, an experience.

And from that moment, you associated this experience with the concept of love. You began developing ideas about what love meant, how you were supposed to act, and ultimately what you wanted your "love life" to look like, even if that means you wanted nothing to do with it at all. This is your philosophy of love.

Giles stated that we don't need a philosophy of love in order to be in love. But human beings cannot help forming a philosophy of love, even if unintentionally. A human's ability to reason ensures that some kind of philosophy will form for all experiences. Therefore, since everyone experiences love (universal experience), everyone must have a philosophy of love. And this happens even if you don't know it's going on.

The second problem with Giles's statement is that he claims you don't "need" the philosophy to be in love. His implication, I believe, is that human beings experience love naturally without needing any rational activity taking place. Falling in love, he's saying, is not like deciding how or if or when to start a business. However, it is naive to think that you can do something well, or that your plans will turn out well, without a solid philosophy about them.

If my philosophy of love is that I am the center of the universe and everyone I "love" has to do what I say, well, it's obvious I am going to fail miserably at my relationships. (Unless of course I meet a really kinky submissive.) That's an extreme example. Let's look at one that's more frequent, and since this is a blog about poly (sometimes, anyway), let's make it a poly example.

I was raised to believe that the only choice for love was a long-lasting monogamous marriage with my soul mate. This was a faulty philosophy given to me by my mother about love. Why is it faulty? For one thing, I do have a choice. Monogamy is not the only choice. Having multiple, simultaneous partners is a choice. Having no partners is a choice. The truth is, if you can conceive it, it's a choice. I didn't know that. For another thing, the word "soulmate" is an invented concept, perpetuated by Hollywood. Letting go of the dream of finding that one perfect person just for us can be brutal. It's a seductive fantasy. There's probably a host of other reasons this philosophy is flawed, but we'll move on. 

Getting married, then, based on this faulty monogamous philosophy created all kinds of problems for me. I wasn't happy being with just one person. And, my "soulmate" didn't turn out to be "perfect". It's unreasonable to think any partner could be. You can guess, no doubt, this made for some pretty shitty "love". If I had chosen to continue within this faulty framework, I could have gotten divorced and looked for a new "soulmate". And so, the cycle would continue.

When real life doesn't fit our philosophy, we have the option to change it. By adopting a new philosophy, I could make decisions that made me, and everyone around me, much happier. Taking time to research (a fancy word for gaining more knowledge about a subject) and rationalize and do some serious introspection led me to a different philosophy about love. My new philosophy fit the poly lifestyle quite nicely. I was even able to short-cut many poly relationship pitfalls due to my poly Fore-Sisters and Brothers, who made the mistakes for me and kindly blogged them on the internet! (I cannot thank you enough, Fore-Sisters and Brothers. And I could never list you all. Just know that I'm grateful.)

So, to review, a faulty philosophy of love caused me to make decisions which led me to a very unhappy situation. However, a well thought out, introspective philosophy led me to a life where I am happier than I

YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!

have ever dreamed. So, yes, Giles, you can fall in love without a solid philosophy, but if you do YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG. If you want your love life to be worth anything, you're going to have to put some thought into it. And a lack of knowledge about your personal philosophy (even if you say you don't need one) will cause needless heartache for you and your loved ones.

[A]ttention is properly directed on what one does, how meaning is indexed to behaviour. Neither [psychology nor philosophy] is about the clever answers one can provide under cross-examination. Which is just as well – because I don't have them.

A naive worldview, indeed. Whether or not you like it, Life will throw hard questions at you, and sometimes you will have to address them with "cross-examination" speed. You may not have the "right" answers every time, but if you have a well-thought-out philosophy of life and love, you will have a head start. Life does not accept "I don't know" as an answer. Life deals out consequences anyway. In this case, accumulating as much knowledge as possible about yourself and your experiences will better equip you for Life's obstacle course.

A Defense of the Primary/Secondary Model: In Which I Finally Bang Patrick Monahan

The titles "primary" and "secondary" for partners is not reflective of their importance, the depth of the relationship, or simply, who comes first when shit hits the fan. Primary and secondary refer to the investment partners have made with each other. In other words, how much their individual lives are entangled with each other. There are many ways partners can invest in each other.

The most obvious (because it usually happens first) is friendship. Friends look out for you. Tell you the truth when you need to hear it. Listen to you when everything goes wrong. And won't think any less of you because of any of this. Friendship, even though basic and foundational, should not be overlooked. Partners who are solid friends can last through emotional tsunamis. Friends, the ones who are worth while anyway, will put you ahead of themselves when you really need it. They make no requirements other than honesty and decency (sometimes not even that), and they make little or no demands on your time, affections, loyalty, (other non-demands).

Romance is another basic entanglement that most partners share with each other. This is where shit gets emotional. Cause somehow it's just way more hurtful if your partner cancels a date, than if your friend does (the reason is irrelevant). Emotional attachment means, among other things, that you care about what this person thinks about you. If a friend doesn't like my new haircut, well, screw them. They'll get over it. But if my romantic partner doesn't like it ... later, you'll find me at the wig shop.

Sex gets way more face time than it should. For some, like me, there is no experiential difference between sex and romance. But I know for others (maybe most), sex is the only reason to bother with any of the other components of relationships. Thus, I have given "sex" it's own distinction. There's nothing wrong with sex-only relationships when it's mutual. However, when looking for something more, it's best to keep in mind that sex is only one way of relating. Over-emphasizing sex in a relationships, or placing a higher value on sex-only relationships could get you to a place where you don't want to be. Then again, maybe you do.

Finance. First comes love, then comes marriage ... I am not saying that love has to lead to marriage, or should. But marriage is one way that partners become financially entangled. You buy a house, share a bank account, provide health care, are legally considered next-of-kin. This is way more serious than friendship, romance, sex or even all combined. If you want to be rid of a friend (they're seriously crampin' your style), you can stonewall communications, and the relationship is over. If you decide your romantic partner is too co-dependent, you can break up with them. But, once you entangle your finances with a partner or multiple partners, it's gonna take a lot more than a phone call to break things up. It also means there is more to consider when ending the relationship. Can you support yourself? Are you in desperate need of the health care provided by your partner's job? Is there somewhere else for you to live? This level of entanglement can be a stronger bond depending on how interdependent you and your partner(s) are financially. Then again, it may play only very minor roll, and be very easy to break off because everyone's rollin' in the dough. For others though, it could be a life-changing decision.


Parenting is probably the most obvious of relationship entanglements. And the hardest to draw clear boundary lines for. Whether a relationship between parents is on or off, they will have to find a way to communicate. A relationship that involves parenting is never really over, even if you break up and move on, chances are communication between exes will still take place. In my opinion, parenting is the most important relationship area when it comes to getting it right, as success or failure effects more than just the happiness of the partners. I would never say that nontraditional arrangements can't or shouldn't work. But clear communication is needed about responsibilities, expectation and intent of the level of involvement.There may be occasions when a partner's parental responsibilities may not be demanding, but overall, this can be the deepest entanglement for most partners.

Business. And of course when partners are involved in some kind of business together, this can have an impact on their overall attachment to each other. It could also be a sub-group of finance, as business is often tied to livelihood.

Partners can share any one or more of these entanglements. And there are numerous combinations. (Can someone else do the math on that please?) The more two partners are entangled, the more important that relationship is to the individuals. An individual may choose to use the words primary/secondary or not, but regardless of the label, they will still make choices based on this model.

There is no "right" way to have a relationship. What I love about poly is the freedom to let each relationship be what it wants to be without trying to force a cultural model upon it. Friends can be deeply financially entangled, but not romantically involved. Married partners may live separately, and be financially independent of each other, but have a deep romantic relationship. Any relationship may have all the mentioned entanglements, or only one. (None, of course, would mean no relationship.) And as time moves along, relationships may change, adding or dropping entanglements according to the wishes or circumstances of each partner.

The depth and number attachments a relationship has will designate partners as primary or secondary. Meaning, when decisions have to be made (relocation, change of job, birth of a child, whom to marry/divorce, metamores not getting along, etc.), primary relationships will take precedence. This doesn't mean that the other relationships are less important or have less depth. It means that the dynamics of the individual's self-designated primary relationship are more important to that individual's life goals.

Time For an Example and a Whole Lot of Sex

In my model of a completely realistic poly family (see diagram), I am partnered with Brad, Patrick, and Ryan. My relationship with Brad includes friendship, romance, and finance, and a shared dwelling, but (glaringly) lacks sex. (Wait ... who made this damn model anyway? We need to fix that! Stat!) Anywho, Pat is my go-to guy for sex. And with Ryan, I share hot hot sex, steamy romance, and business (we make movies together, yeah that's how I roll). Now, we all know how complicated poly families can get, so for the sake of making a point, without spiraling helplessly out of control, I made this family simple. You can assume Pat and Ryan are both banging other hot movie stars, but they don't affect my point.

When things are peachy, relationships are easy. Brad doesn't mind how many nights I spend on set with Ryan in exotic locales, mostly because he's got Angie and Scarlet on call. Of course Pat's out on tour over the summer, but usually home November-March, and we spend our time together then. See, one big happy poly family. (God, I love my life!)

Now, let's add the secret ingredient: life! This is where shit gets complicated. Angie decides it's time to move. She's got a new lover 5 hours away. This means Brad won't get to see their mutual children very often. He has a few choices. He could move too. But, of course, this would affect me. Do I want to move? If I move, I won't see Pat as much when he's home during the summer. Unless, of course he wants to come stay with me during the summer. But Brad and Pat don't get along that well. (Country vs. Pop music, or something).

Brad has got to make a choice. Which relationship is primary to him (over the other)? And let's not forget poor Scarlet. She needs love--er ... I mean, Brad, too. In this scenario, Brad has to determine the depth and importance of his connections with each of his partners. Perhaps he is hoping the sex-only with Scarlet will eventually develop into something more, so this is his primary concern. Or maybe, being a parent is what he considers the most important thing in his life.

If Brad does decide to move, it won't affect our financial relationship much, seeing as how my last movie was a box office hit. But it would hamper our friendship/romantic relationship. Now I've got to determine which relationship is primary to me. To do so, I need to evaluate the depth and importance of each relationship and what moving will mean for each of those. Will I lose a good chunk of time with Pat? Will I be unable to make more movies with Ryan (unlikely)? Brad and I have been friends for a very long time, and this might be the most important relationship. Am I willing to let the others suffer to keep this relationship fully intact?

The label primary/secondary isn't important. However, understanding that all relationships have different levels of involvement is. It is foolish to think that all relationships are equal to each other. Life will demand that you shake things up every now and again. Understanding the degree of entanglements of your partners' other relationships will save you much heartache.

If Brad decides to move closer to Angie, for example, and I choose to stay closer to Ryan and Pat, I know this does not mean "he likes her better than me" or that she is "primary" and I am "secondary". I understand that being a father is important to Brad, and this is what really makes him happy, so this is his primary concern for the time being. I support his decision. Brad, in turn, recognizes that my other relationships have a stronger hold on me at this time in my life, they are my primary concern, and that my decision to stay in no way means that I love him less or love them more.

Let me explain ... No, there is too much. Let me sum up ... Using labels like primary/secondary, can save your partners a lot of heartache by letting them know where your desires/life goals lay at any one point in your relationship. The distinctions of friendship, romance, sex, etc. are arbitrary. I used the most common attachments between partners merely as examples to make a point. The bonds that partners can have with each other can only be defined by those individuals. You may not choose to use the words primary/secondary. But communicating how and why particular relationships may take precedence over others will go along way to keeping everyone on the same page when life happens. The labels are not important, but communication is essential.

A Weiner Dog With Mustard Please

Did I miss something?! I mean, I don't follow politics, and I wouldn't consider myself a Weiner fan, but this recent controversy over the mayoral candidate is flat out stupid. As far as I can tell, Anthony Weiner got caught (again) texting nude photos of himself to women he had been chatting with (for a period of time) online. This is news worthy?

Refresh  my memory. Since when is it illegal to send naked pictures of oneself over the wire? Oh, wait, were there children in the pictures? Receiving the pictures? No? Oh, okay. So then he must be imposing his sexy pictures on unwilling ladies? No? Um, okay ... so, exactly what has he done that every other hot-blooded American male hasn't done or thought about doing? And since when is said activity illegal?

Sometimes, when engaging with those inflicted with the monogamy-is-right mindset, I get the feeling that their disapproval stems from more than just cultural deviation. In other words, they're jealous. They wish polyamory was an option for them. Maybe they feel that time has passed them by, or that their current partner would "never go for it". But they look at me, in all my slutty happiness, and think, if only ... At first sight, they are intrigued by the thought of poly, then, in the very next breath they're running down the (obvious) gamut of poly critiques.

What's the rub? Well, if I'm not allowed to be a happy slut, then no one else should be allowed either. I spent my life suffering needlessly. The least you can do is suffer in the same way. I didn't get to be happy in my life-long relationship(s), why should you get to sleep with whomever you want and get away with it? 

Suggestion: are Weiner's critics merely jealous that he indulges (shamelessly) in his own sexual fantasies, while they've had to deny themselves in the name of decency? And, yes, I want to use the word "jealous", because jealous is: Why does she get a bigger piece of chocolate cake? and Why doesn't he have as many grey hairs as I do? Jealous is I'd rather see you brought down to my level so we can both suffer, than watch you enjoy something I don't have, even if I don't really want it.

How many men, I wonder, deny themselves opportunities to indulge their (legal, mind you) sexual fantasies because they have been convinced by the morally superior (and usually hypocritical) that said fantasies are "wrong"? How many do engage in said explicit activities but fear discovery, especially by a spouse, because their spouse has been indoctrinated that "good husbands" don't engage in said activity? So, why should Weiner be allowed to do what ever he wants and just get away with it? Politicians can't be sexual! They must be chaste, monogamous, and, let's just say it, asexual. Is that really so much to ask?

Or maybe, Weiner's critics still live in the delusional world where monogamous love lasts for a lifetime and is completely satisfying. I keep forgetting that some people believe this fairytale. Sigh.

My mother actually says she doesn't understand why Weiner's wife stays with him, and stands by him. HELLO! That's an easy one: because she wants to. Is this really even a discussion topic? Again, with the happily-ever-after. So, he likes showing off his body! What is the big fucking deal? He's not even sleeping with these other women (reportedly). And even if he were, how is it anyone else's business but his and his wife? She accepts him and his behavior (at least publicly).

Sydney Leathers

And who is this chick with the purple lipstick going on about, I thought he had changed, and He's lying to everyone? Sydney Leathers says she felt manipulated by him? Are you kidding? She develops a relationship of some kind with this man who has a known "issue" (because it was such a scandal the first time). Then she's shocked when he sends her naked photos and runs straight to the media! And we're supposed to believe that Leathers is the one being manipulated here.

Of course if Weiner (or Leathers) was caught gazing at Playboy or pursuing through Hustler, well that's an acceptable form of sexual expression. And just when I thought our culture had progressed a smidgen.

Cultural Conditioning: Watching Kids at Play

It’s refreshing to watch children play. For one thing, I am reminded what it was like to be totally free to express myself in every way I could think of, without the fear of being shamed. It is balm to the soul to remember that freedom is still inside of me somewhere. Albeit small and silent.

The other reason I love watching my children express their imaginations, is that it reminds me of the filter my cultural upbringing has instilled in me. The filter through which I view the world. For example, my first encounter with filters was when I realized most people didn't walk around as angry as I was.

When I was younger I was angry all the time. Instead of rose-colored glasses, mine were gray and sometimes black. As a result I was an embittered and impossible child. (Sorry, Mom.) And I thought this was how everyone saw the world. It wasn't until after years of therapy and meds that I discovered, most people can and do enjoy life! How odd.

This is to say, we aren't aware of our filters until they are pointed out to us. Typically, children have had much less exposure to cultural norms and expectations. So they aren't restricted in their play the way adults can be.  As kids become more aware of cultural rituals and rules, it is curious to see how they mix and match the ideas, sometimes following the rules sometimes making up their own. This is the game I play with myself as I watch them, trying to notice my own indoctrination through their obvious lack of it.

Which brings me to an anecdote from our annual family vacation. I am not “out” as poly to my family and many of my friends. My mother is a pastor and I live in a hoity-toity part of the Bible Belt. It’s not fair that my young children should be ostracized for choices they didn't make if it’s within my control. My children are young and do not yet have direct knowledge of my relationships outside the home.

On vacation we’re all sitting around in the living room of a rented space, watching my two children (boy and girl) and my brother’s two kids (also a boy and a girl) play. My daughter (the oldest) decides they should all “get married”. A relatively routine game for children, still navigating the complicated ocean of relationships. What girl didn't plan out her wedding day at least a few hundred times.? (Sigh. Also, cultural conditioning.)

But in the kids’ imaginary game, who’s going to marry whom? Well, we wouldn't want any feelings to be hurt. So, my daughter decides (with absolutely no input from me) that they will all get married together. She will marry both boys, in one ceremony. And her girl cousin will marry both boys in another. (I’m also loving the female patriarch implied here!)

What was incredible to me was how all of the other kids went along with this idea without batting an eye. Makes perfect sense, we all want to live together and be happy, so we’ll get married the way our grown-ups do. Of course the ceremonies were elaborate (and expensive!) And she got to walk her two “men” down the aisle.  Flowers, veils … we spared no expense.

Fortunately for me, no one noticed this social faux pas. Except my husband, who bore holes into me with his eyes from across the room.

Another glaringly obvious “rule” of the game was that only the girls could marry boys. Girls marrying girls, or boys with boys, wasn't suggested. An example of mixing and matching the rules, and also, I think, far too little exposure to gay culture (not by choice, by circumstance).

The "rules" of culture are not always so straight forward. Sometimes you don't even realize what you're doing until you meet someone (usually from a far away land) who does it differently. And, on occasion, cultural "rules" can be a positive thing, like positive peer pressure. But more importantly, it's being aware of the conditioning that makes a difference. This is what allows us to change course, should the time ever come when it's needed. And it allows us to be compassionate and tolerant of others, especially others with different cultural conditioning.

A challenge for all of us: be more aware of your conditioning as we move through our day.

The Freedom of Vulnerability

Long ago, on the schoolyard, we learned to hide what others might consider odd. Lest we commit the ultimate sin by letting them see us cry.

Being vulnerable means opening yourself up to ridicule. Knowing they can and they will, yet still wearing it proud. The downside: the horrible shame and humiliation you feel when someone disapproves of your core self. The self you really are, no masks, no deceit, everything completely laid bare.

The upside (and, yes, there is one): when your core self is revealed, with its obvious weaknesses and unattractiveness, and you are accepted anyway. It's the most amazing feeling a human can experience.

And vulnerability in romantic relationships … well, that is an entirely new level of hurt. Is the risk worth the reward?

Only when I finally let myself be truly vulnerable to others was I really free to be myself. I didn't have to fret about being caught with my guard down. What will so-and-so think about my such-and-such? What a breath of fresh air to be really free from ridicule. That's not to say I wasn't or won't be ridiculed. That people won't disagree with me. (I hope they do. What a boring world it would be otherwise!) 

Being disapproved of by others can be painful. We have a built-in evolutionary need to feel accepted by our peers. In order to minimize our hurt we develop defense mechanisms. We (1) avoid relationships as much as possible, (2) adopt a mask, which hides the core self, or (3) build sturdy fences (or sometimes walls) around the relationship making it theoretically impossible to be hurt by one's partner.

What makes ridicule so powerful, so penetrative, is that others illuminate the very things we are trying to hide. That I have a crappy job, I look silly when I dance, I cringe when I hear my father’s voice, or that my body bulges in unattractive ways.

A truly vulnerable person looks at her own weaknesses and opens them up voluntarily. Maybe this is along the same lines as comedians who make fun of themselves? "I'm not fat. I'm fluffy." Who can really make fun of us when we’re already laughing?

Some people feel this sense of vulnerability more than others. And the greater the chance of pain, the more defense mechanisms, fences, walls, and dark, dank dungeons we feel to be necessary.

As a teen, and even in my early adult years, I was terrified of being "revealed" to disapproving eyes. It didn't really matter what my supposed offense might be. The thought of being unacceptable to others, especially peers and potential partners, drove me to hide behind a mask of rigid toughness. Still, somewhere in my private fantasy world, I was looking for that safe relationship where I could reveal myself in totality and be completely accepted.

For many years I was told and believed that I could find this "total acceptance" in a relationship with "god". This of course was little more than my imagination playing with itself. Even grownups can find comfort in imaginary, I guess.

Of course, the answer is always the most obvious and the most complicated. I had to accept myself. I had to ultimately not care what others thought of me, while still caring, lest I be lost to cynicism. I had to know my place, and love my place.

Being vulnerable is the single-most quality that has opened up my life. For the first time I am available. Available, open, and able to confidently address whatever comes my way.

After being married (and mono) for almost ten years, I began a new relationship. It was a whole new experience of vulnerability. Dating in my early twenties was a game of masks (not Thrones, sorry), always being more savvy than the next potential partner. Keeping my secret love of all things nerdy, and my total lack of sexual experience completely hidden.

Even after marrying, it was a long struggle to bring down walls. And I don't think I truly accomplished that until recently, becoming poly, and letting the last hidden piece of myself be revealed. At the time, I didn't know how it would work out. I told my hubby I was in love with someone else (too). And it certainly wasn't a walk in the park for him. But ultimately, he chose to accept me, all of me. And I have never felt so loved by him as I did that day. And every day after …

Being vulnerable in my new relationship was a whole other thing. I'm not a shallow teenager anymore. I like to think that I've matured beyond playing the boyfriend trophy game. This was going to be something really different. Dating as a grown-up ... hmmm ... a post for another day?

For this new relationship, I wanted to be entirely myself, entirely vulnerable, from the start. If I couldn't do that, then the relationship would be a real waste of my time. But it wasn't as easy as I thought. I mean, being completely vulnerable to a new person is scary. Rejection, even if it's only in the form of a blank stare, hurts, especially if it's someone whose opinion means something.

What a lucky dumbfuck I am! TheTotalPackage (his choice of name, btw) turned out to be the most amazing, understanding human being I could have hoped for. But, fuck, it was scary. I must have made a total fool of myself trying not to be so shy and stupid, but also not put a false front.

All those lofty defenses I'd erected early in life were awfully tiring and only got me further away from where I wanted to be. Being loved for the picture of perfection I wish I was just left me feeling dissatisfied in the end.

Here is your own personal invitation to open up your vulnerable self to people. Start by opening up to just one. But make sure it’s really your whole self, no hiding the parts you don't like. See how it feels. Don't let someone's bad mood or lack of tact put you off. It's okay if you get rejected or meet blank stares. It won't kill you, and you are headed toward a lofty goal.

Poly-norm vs. poly-nilla

Recently, all this talk about "poly normativity" has me feeling a bit left out. I'll admit it, when it comes to sexuality, I'm a bit ... well, vanilla. But I like that. I have nothing against kink, or queer folk. In fact, I've learned a lot about my own sexuality from both these communities.

And I'll come out and say, that I fit the "poly normal" model. That is, I live with my husband and my two children and see another partner on the side. I didn't plan for it to be that way. I hadn't planned to be polyamorous at all, nor did I even know such a thing was an actual "thing" until almost  two years ago.

I became poly because I met someone I really, really liked. And what a shame it would be to let that person just disappear from my life because I was married. And why should I break up my happy family, and leave my loving husband to be with my new love interest? So, when both gentlemen agreed that I could be with them both ... well, happy day for me! I defaulted to poly status because I found like minded people calling themselves the same thing. But what I really am is happy.

What I hear polynormativity saying is that's not enough. I have to arrange my life and relationships around being the very pinnacle of sexual extremism. So, it's not okay to be poly and vanilla?

Yes, I agree that the media is packaging polyamory into an alluring product in order to sell, sell, sell. Poly is not a fun, edgy, sexual playground for bored white folks. At least, it's not meant to be. But, really? That's what the media does. Sorry sister, if it's out there, the media is going to do what they can to take advantage of it. But that doesn't mean that being "polynormal" is the downfall of polyamory.

Sexgeek writes:

At its most basic, I’d say some people’s poly looks good to the mainstream, and some people’s doesn’t. The mainstream loves to think of itself as edgy, sexy and cool. The mainstream likes to co-opt whatever fresh trendy thing it can in order to convince itself that it’s doing something new and exciting, because that sells magazines, event tickets, whatever. The mainstream likes to do all this while erecting as many barriers as it can against real, fundamental value shifts that might topple the structure of How the World Works. In this case, that structure is the primacy of the couple.

First of all, I've never desired to be edgy or cool. Not in my entire life. In fact, most of the PTA moms are surprised to discover just how geeked out I can get about certain things (which shall remain nameless). Secondly, I'm not after approval (or disapproval, for that matter) from anyone.

Polyamory is a strong force for shifting the shitty, centuries-old vales of our religion-driven society. Let's take a look at those poly-driven value shifts:

1. Loving people according to how each individual and relationship functions best. 
2. Viewing relationships as having no chronological structure. No beginning or ending. No real purpose or value outside of the mutual satisfaction of the individuals involved. 
3. Owning up to your own emotions as your own issues to deal with, and not your partner's job to protect you from. 
4. Communicating your needs to your partners and not relying on an reliquary relationship framework to tell you what roles you must play.

There are probably more, I'm sure. But having adopted these into my mind frame, am I still not reformed enough to be poly? What's so wrong with being vanilla anyway? I'm fairly convinced I will never be attracted to women, or want to engage in BDSM, sex parties or romps with more than one person at a time. But that's just me. I happen to like being vanilla.

I agree that the media will always screw up whatever is going right in the world. And there will always be bandwagon-jumpers flocking to American Idol-esque fads. But is the poly community really willing to shut out sincere poly-nillas just because we're not freaky enough, just because we happen to fit the polynormal media image? Isn't vanilla a choice too?

Begging for Validation

I recently read a post on reddit's polyamory board about a woman who was upset that her long time boyfriend couldn't or wouldn't say "I love you". This bothered me though I couldn't pin down the reason right away. There's quite a bit to play with here, though I think the main rub is the way relationships are often used as self-validation.

Validation means to authenticate or prove. And self-validation is anything that authenticates the self or personal identity. There are any number of routes to self-validation. The usual line-up consisting of money, power, status, relationships, material possessions.

The dangerous side of using some "thing" for self-validation is the risk of losing the "thing" equates to losing the "self". This is how the ending of a job or a relationship can lead some individuals to total mental breakdown. It explains why others will remain in a crumbling or even abusive relationship long past the expiration date.

Since opening my life and relationships to polyamory, I have notice a drastic change in the way I relate to everyone, but especially my intimate partners. In the past, including when I got married ten years ago, I used my relationships as a means of proving to the world and to myself that I was worthwhile. Maybe even something special. (Fighting off the middle school demons who told me I was too weird, tomboyish, and ugly to have a boyfriend.)

I don't credit polyamory entirely for my change in perspective. Zen meditation and the practice of non-attachment were a big part of it as well. Attachment is the Buddhist principle of binding oneself to objects or concepts. Non-attachment is the release of that binding, including the attachment to one's own identity or ego.

Without the need for validation, I approach my intimate relationships without actually needing anything from them. I can appreciate my partners and what they offer without wanting more (or less). Each partner's unique form of love is beautiful in it's own way. And it's more than I could ask for. It makes no difference at all if our relationship or their method of loving matches some outside measuring stick of relationships, including when to say those three little words. 

Religion too is a form of validation. (I do not think of Zen as a religion, but a philosophy.) Being raised (and entrenched) in Christianity, it felt as though I was always looking outward at events and people for confirmation, or "signs". God was the source of my identity. This is why it can be so impossible for religious people to break away even when faced with solid evidence. The loss of religion is a loss of self. 

Religion, relationships and everything else will always prove inadequate as self-validators. It is my own "self" that I must confront and accept ... and validate. Not in a superior way, but in a compassionate way that doesn't hide or ignore what others might shun. 

And that is all that matters- your life, yourself, your pettiness, your shallowness, your brutality, your violence, your greed, your ambition, your daily agony and endless sorrow- that is what you have to understand and nobody on earth or in heaven is going to save you from it but yourself. -J. Krishnamurti

The Source of Unhappiness

‘I am unhappy and I must be happy.’ In that very demand that I must be happy is unhappiness … When you demand an experience of truth or reality, that very demand is born out of your discontent with what is and therefore the demand creates the opposite. -J. Krishnamurti

Today as I felt incredibly unhappy, but instead of distracting myself with television or games, I sat quietly. My children ran around the place screaming, beating each other with weapons born out of miscellaneous household items, a pillow, a cardboard tube, Nerf guns.

What I notice is my incessant uneasiness at being unhappy. I do nothing about this. Why must I be happy?

My mind wants me to solve this problem. My natural inclination is to (1) identify the source of my unhappiness, and then (2) change my circumstances. I have finally reached a place in my self-journey where I can recognize these inclinations leading me down a dangerous road.

The source of my unhappiness

The truth is, unhappiness does not always have a source. Emotions float through our consciousness as they please. Sometimes they are triggered by a situation, but even these “terrible” events are often not as bad as they seem. Other times unhappiness comes to us like an unexpected guest.

Happiness comes to us the same way, but we don’t consciously notice it. We think we have a right to always feel this good. It’s not true. When happiness comes, we let it in. When it goes, we should let it go.

In the past, I had a tendency to blame my unhappiness on my partner. “I’m feeling bad because I’m lonely; you don’t pay enough attention to me.” “The messy house is putting me in a bad mood. Why don’t you clean up after yourself?” (If I had no partner at the time, I would blame my lack of a partner. “If I only had Prince Charming to make me feel better.”)

Changing my circumstances

Nagging my partner to change, shockingly, never made me feel better. At least not long term. Ultimately, the false change only caused discord in the relationship as my partner felt he needed to act counter intuitively.

When loving actions are given the space to flow on their own, I feel them deeper. I know they come from a place motivated by my partner’s feelings and reflective of my partner’s individuality. (Their unique brand love is why I want to be with my partners in the first place. No one can love me the way they do.) Every person must feel free to act in the loving matter most natural to them. Expectations outside of what feels right, only creates rifts between partners.

Recognizing that my bad mood has no source makes it illogical to change my circumstances in order to feel better. I have what I need. Even better, I have people who love me, and opportunities to expand and grow.

As Krishnamurti said, my unhappiness is born out of the false idea that I should or need to feel happy all the time. And I don’t. Truth is, I can just be. And appreciate the wonderful people around me.