[ View menu ]

Toys and Ties

Can anyone tell me why do governments want to get inside bedrooms?
Old laws that forbid oral or anal sex may occasionally be quoted as jokes, despite their very existence being a sad fact even when said existence is only caused by people having forgotten to repeal them, but new laws that interfere in people’s sex lives are certainly no laughing matter!
What kind of twisted process took place inside the brain of the person coming up with a law to ban the production and sale of “any device designed or marketed as useful for the stimulation of human genital organs”? I also wonder what other twisted mental process is needed to tie that definition to nude dancing, which is supposedly what the law was originally trying to ban, or why would anybody consider it their business to ban that in the first place?
I look at those questions and only come up with answers containing various variations of “stuck-up morons” or “close-minded fundamentalists”, but if anybody has any others I’d be very curious as to what they are.

On another note, at the opposite end of the spectrum and probably only related because both topics contain the word “sex”, Norwegian ministers plan to start marrying same-sex couples. I find it a rather refreshing news item, despite my fierce opposition to the idea of marriage. It’s not a question of why would they marry, but simply the fact that those same-sex couples who wish for a marriage ceremony conducted by a minister representing the country’s majority religion will now be able to have one.
Of course, it certainly helps that said majority religion is Lutheranism and also that Norway is considered the least religious European country… Would be nice to see this acceptance rub off on the main branches of Christianity and other major world religions, though. One can dream, right?

Written by Cavalary on October 5, 2007 at 12:57 AM in Society | 0 Comments

Polyamory – II

I’ve been meaning to write this since the day I “moved in” here and if this won’t make me do it then nothing will…
Before I start, have to mention that I wrote the first post on the topic years ago.

Imagine a world where bleeding hearts will get healed, not broken. A world where souls won’t get torn apart, leaving only empty shells behind. A world where there would be nothing dreadful to leave behind, to “get over”, to forget. A world without a “rut” to get stuck into. A world where support will always be just a sigh away and where problems will get solved from within. A world where compromise will no longer mean doing what all dislike the least, but actually what each likes best, separately, but without being apart. A world where all will be winners and none will have to settle for a part for fear of being left with nothing if they don’t. A world where we will finally accept that nobody’s perfect, knowing that nobody needs to be. A world where we will work and fight for, and not against, each other. A world where we will learn to be the best that we can be, not just to appear better than another.
Can we achieve that? Maybe we could and perhaps we won’t, but is it not a worthy goal to work towards, a worthy cause to fight for? And if it can’t be achieved in its entirety within our lifetime, isn’t it worth trying to at least achieve a part of it? And if not even part of it could be achieved globally, shouldn’t we at least try to achieve it for ourselves, for our lives and the lives of those we have touched and imprinted forever?
Perhaps doing it for ourselves will even be enough. As long as we will let everyone else see, we could teach by example, and that is often the best way.

What does all that have to do with polyamory? It’s a part of it, and the part I have chosen to talk about at this time. A part that could perhaps be achieved, which would mean a huge step towards the goal.
There’s that saying, “as within, so without”, which is usually taken to mean that you should create inside yourself that which you wish to see around you. But silence and peace are often harder to attain alone, so would it not be a logical step to achieve these goals within our relationships first and then let our resulting state of mind rub off on the world?
I’m not saying polyamory in general, and my view of it especially, is the best way to achieve that goal, as there’s always something better. It is likely a solution better than some and worse than others, but it is the best I can think of and all I ask is for you to hear me out and then think it over for yourselves. Pass it through your own reasoning and come up with your own answers, but make sure your own minds are giving those answers and making those choices.
Chains are hard to break and freedom is sometimes a scary prospect…

From minor arguments among friends to major wars, misunderstanding is the main cause for conflict. That said, I must define what I’m talking about before I can ask you to consider it. Reclaim the term, if you will, since some use it to justify cheating, fear of commitment or putting one gender in a position of authority over the other.
While, if taken in the most general of contexts, any person involved in a relationship with two or more others can be considered polyamorous, I would like to remind people that the second half of the word links it specifically to love. It doesn’t mean having sex with multiple people, it doesn’t mean running around from one person to another and it certainly doesn’t mean having slaves to satisfy your every whim and desire. It means loving more than one person at a time. It describes a loving relationship between three or more people.
It also does not describe open relationships for the simple reason that the term “open relationship” is a separate term coined to describe them. Open relationships have a “core” that represents the actual relationship, but those involved in it also have the freedom to find others to be with, usually for short periods of time, with the full knowledge and approval of their partner(s), as long as they respect certain rules. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with this, everybody has the right to do whatever they want as long as all know how things stand and aren’t tricked into believing something else, it’s simply not what I’m talking about.
And, very importantly, polyamory doesn’t put any gender above the other. It can mean one woman with two or more men or two or more of each just as well as it can mean one man with two or more women.

Now that I’ve told you what I don’t mean by it, I should say what I do mean when I use the term…
What I mean is a closed, or mostly closed, committed relationship between three or more people bonded by love, not necessarily mutual in all cases. A relationship where people don’t go around dating and having sex with others whenever they want, but usually stick to their long-term partners, either simultaneously or alternating according to a more or less predetermined schedule. A relationship based on honesty and trust where each cares and fights for all others.

Problems are solved by all and you are more likely to find support since there is more than one person around you. Relationship problems are especially easily solved, since friction between any two partners, if not resolved, can destabilize the entire relationship, so it is in the best interest of all to help. Also, one person that is part of the relationship can help two others solve their differences better than anyone else, having been there to know all the data but also being removed enough to think clearly and see the potential solutions.
The possibility of getting tired of one person is also ruled out, since you can alternate or be with more than one at once, as is the need to accept that some of your needs will never be met or the pressure to meet needs you aren’t able to meet, since what one doesn’t meet, the other(s) will. This greatly reduces friction and the feeling that you need a change, that you need someone else, which is usually a natural reaction after a certain amount of time spent in a monogamous relationship, even a very successful one.
The advantages when it comes to sharing the workload are even more obvious and I don’t think I even need to mention them. Though more people will require a certain extra amount of work, some things will be more or less the same, so splitting that work between three, four or even more people is certainly better than splitting it between two. And with splitting chores being one of the major reasons for being unhappy in a relationship, this will greatly reduce the risk of arguments.
And another major advantage that I need to mention here is the possibility of being in a relationship with a person that truly loves you but that you don’t love yourself, as long as they are truly willing to do what it takes and you have grown to at least somewhat like them, of course, since you will still be able to be with the one(s) you love at the same time. And keep in mind that someday you can be in that person’s situation, if you haven’t been there already, so it also gives you the chance of being in a relationship with someone you truly love but who doesn’t love you back.

Such a relationship can involve both primary and secondary connections between people.
A primary relationship is one that takes up a lot of your time and attention, the relationship you focus on, usually with the person you live with. Having two primary relationships is certainly possible, if you are careful not to end up putting one above the other in the long run, your job and social life take up very little of your time and you either live with both of your “primaries” or alternate between living with each. In case of alternating, keeping a strong secondary relationship with one while living with the other is crucial for long-term stability. Alternating also makes a little more time available for your other activities, but not much more, since you will need to make up for the time spent apart each time and the secondary relationship with the one you don’t live with at the time will also need to be quite strong. Having more than two “primaries”, however, seems impossible to me. Even with no time spent on anyone or anything else and without any alone time, you simply won’t be able to offer enough to each of them.
A secondary relationship is one that you spend less time on, generally with a person that can meet a certain need of yours that isn’t met in your primary relationship. The difference between this and cheating is that this is all in the open and the primary partner sets the ground rules. A secondary partner can be someone you go out with Saturday night if you like to do that and your primary partner doesn’t, someone you have sex with when your primary partner just doesn’t feel like it, someone you go to when you simply need a short-term “change of scenery”, from all points of view, and so on. You could have two or three “secondaries” and perhaps alternate between them, but for them to count as secondary relationships they have to be long-term. If you want someone new for this role every so often then what you really want is an open relationship and not what I’m talking about here. What I said about two or three “secondaries” applies if you have just one primary relationship. If you have two “primaries”, even a single “secondary” would be a terrible strain if you ask me, but I can see how some might be able to pull it off…

To me, the most stable relationship seems to be that between four people where each has a primary relationship with two of the others, alternating as I described above, regardless of whether they’re straight, bisexual or gay. But that between three people where either the two that are of the same gender are bisexual or all are of the same gender and gay, creating a solid and permanent “core”, each having a primary relationship with each of the others, could also work almost equally well.
This doesn’t mean that relationships between more people can’t be stable. With enough care and planning, there are certainly ways to achieve similar stability with five, six, seven or even eight people, and possibly even more, but those are the easiest to describe and also seem the easiest to achieve, so that’s why I mentioned them here.

Considering the possibility of secondary relationships, the “networking” can get quite interesting, but since a person’s involvement with their secondary partner’s other partner’s partner would be non-existant I won’t consider connections that far removed. Still, besides the inner peace and security that such relationships can bring, having people connected like that might have interesting consequences for the world at large, make people care more and be less selfish…

But this is getting too long already and I don’t want to scare you away, so I’ll continue another time. Until then, just open your mind and think about it, nothing more…

Written by Cavalary on October 3, 2007 at 11:59 PM in Relationships | 0 Comments

Bad Timing…

I was napping as I sometimes do in the evening, but slept longer this time due to sleeping very poorly these past few days since I was trying to make the most of my time alone and there was also the Formula One race in Japan, which put it early in the morning for me. Then I got up and made my way to the computer, still not fully awake. Checked my mail and saw that somebody had replied to a message from me on OkCupid, so I logged on to read it and woke up instantly, then paralyzed a second later…
Yeah, bumped into her being on at the same time. She hadn’t logged on there in over a year and… Talk about bad timing! Ok, so she might have logged on the first time a few days ago, not tonight, since that was the last time I checked, after I changed some of my older answers, and I would have most likely frozen if I checked again at some later point and noticed that she had logged on even if she hadn’t showed up as on-line now and hadn’t checked my profile, but still…
So one moment my eyes are wide open and my hair stands on end, the next I’m drenched in sweat, frozen, shivering uncontrolably, numb, dizzy, nauseous and about to crap in my pants… Guess that proves it one more time at least, if there was any need… Sat there for a moment and considered sending her an IM, since she had it on. I mean, whether she replied or not, it’s not like it could get much worse… (Ok, there’s one thing that could make it worse, but as things stand it wouldn’t make that much of a difference, after all it’s not like there’s any chance now either as far as I know.) Then decided against it but couldn’t just bail out without saying anything at all, so I sent a message saying just “Talk about bad timing… ‘Scuse me, bye….” and then got the fuck out of there.
That was nearly six hours ago and the after-effects are still very much noticeable. Didn’t eat or drink anything tonight and sleep also seems to be out of the question… And it’s not just that nobody has a gun available, but I can’t exactly have a date with the knife now either since it’s likely to be noticed shortly. At least the scars could be passed as something that happened in the past, but if they’d look very recent…

Written by Cavalary on October 2, 2007 at 5:55 AM in Personal | 0 Comments

"Green" Reading

With all the talk about offsetting carbon emissions, it was about time for somebody to start offsetting trees. It would of course matter what kind of trees will be planted and where, but let’s take it one thing at a time.
As for them being a for-profit organization, as long as they do what they say they’re going to do, and at what seems to be a very reasonable price as well, why not? If there’s anything worth making a profit from is helping the environment, because so far people were only profiting from destroying it.

Though many will scoff at the idea because of the added cost, how about adding a tax on paper products, be they books, newspapers, packs of printing paper or anything else? There’s already an EU tax on electronics which is supposed to fund the collection centers where such products are to be properly disposed of or recycled, as the case may be, when they will be thrown away, so why not a tax to fund replanting trees that were cut to produce that paper? Should also apply to anything made of wood, of course.
If you sit to think about it, all it would do is get the price of the product closer to the actual cost. That’s the issue with environmentally-friendly products, people say they’re too expensive when in fact the others are too cheap compared to their actual cost. Plus that such “green” taxes, if used appropriately, can’t be challenged by people saying they’re paying for things they don’t use. Not unless they somehow manage to live without breathing at least…

If you compare the amounts sold, newspapers and printing paper are a far worse problem than books from that point of view and applying such a tax on those might have interesting effects. I wonder what would happen if it would be applied to newspapers especially.
Taking the prices of newspapers here into account, it would probably cause said prices to at least double, if not triple. That should make people share them instead of buying more and be more picky about the ones they do buy. Also, considering the widespread move to digital media lately, that is likely to make more people read their newspapers on-line.
Keeping that in mind, the same tax should add no more than 10-20% to the price of a book. Now people are already complaining that books are too expensive and I tend to agree, at least over here, but I wonder why do we find it more acceptable to pay the writers, the agents, the printing press workers or the machines used than to pay Earth for providing it all to us?
And there is something else. With the price of a newspaper going up 100-200% and the price of a book going up 10-20%, perhaps this would make more people take a book along on the bus or subway… Which won’t be a bad thing at all, if you ask me.

There are plenty of taxes we shouldn’t be paying because there are plenty of things that shouldn’t be done with our money and others that we should be paying but don’t since there are things that should be done but aren’t. I guess somebody is there to make sure all governments keep looking for better ways of making a round world be upside-down.

Written by Cavalary on September 29, 2007 at 2:57 AM in Environment | 0 Comments

Nothing to Say

Just two years since the moment she left the first time… Anything I’d have to say, everyone already knows…

Written by Cavalary on September 27, 2007 at 4:00 AM in Personal | 0 Comments