Showing posts with label Love. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Love. Show all posts
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Sunday, May 10, 2009
The Art of Falling in Love (Harriet Swain)
[Reprinted from The Guardian]
Falling in love is one of the main perks of being a student. Never again are you likely to find such a wide selection of potential mates all in one place, or spend so much time gazing into each other's textbooks.
First though, there are a few people you must try not to fall in love with. These include: your best friend's ex, your flatmate, your flatmate's ex, your personal tutor, your tutor's spouse, the university chaplain.
It takes between 90 seconds and four minutes to decide if you fancy someone. In fact, according to research by psychologist Arthur Arun, if you spend half an hour sharing intimate details of your lives with a complete stranger and then four minutes staring deeply into their eyes, it is possible to fancy almost anyone. See the above list of lovers-to-avoid, and avert your gaze.
Only 7% of feeling attracted to someone has anything to do with what they say. This may be reassuring if you find every time you meet the object of your affections you talk complete gibberish.
Once you fall in love, it is a good idea to make sure the other person falls in love with you. Why not suggest bungee jumping as the first date? No, really. It has been proved that people easily confuse sexual arousal with downright terror. They will think they are madly in love when in fact they are worried about smashing their head on a large rock.
Alternatively, you could try cooking a candlelit dinner. Candles make your pupils dilate, which is another sign of arousal. Do make sure you can cook, though, as people are unlikely to confuse food poisoning with love.
If your date offers to cook for you, say how delicious it all was. Compliments make people feel good about themselves and more inclined to feel good about you. Then fill up their glass, and look deeply into their eyes. Again.
Writing poetry is nice, unless your beloved is studying English literature, in which case you'll be facing strong competition from the likes of William Shakespeare and John Donne. Unfortunately for scientists, equations are rarely an acceptable alternative.
Once you love each other, you are likely to start mirroring each other's movements, such as not turning up to lectures early in the morning. You may also start talking constantly about your lover, and snogging on the sofa while your flatmates are trying to watch telly. This will make you intensely annoying to everyone else, but you probably won't even notice. In any case, you can't help it. Scientists have shown falling in love is like a form of obsessive compulsive disorder, without the constant housework.
Meanwhile, if you've not managed to stare at a stranger long enough to clinch a date by Valentine's Day, don't despair. You can always mirror your professors and fall in love with your subject.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Will you just LISTEN already??
When people learn that I have a mental illness, everything I say tends to be filtered through their existing preconceptions of what the mentally ill can and cannot do.
Let's say I have an argument or an unconventional belief - however well thought out and logical, however long it's taken me to come up with it - it's inevitably seen as a sort of twisted logic, I can't possibly be right. Homosexuality or bisexuality? It's because I'm ill. Polyamory? It's because my illness has distorted or warped my views on love and trust. The right to die? That's my depression talking.
People confuse causation with correlation. My bisexuality doesn't cause my depression and anxiety, neither is it a result of it. Polyamory is not a symptom of mental dysfunction, it's a position I take based on my understandings of human biology and psychology, it simply makes more sense to me than compulsory monogamy. I would change my opinion on it if I found evidence to the contrary. And my stance on the right to end one's own life is something I have come to having witnessed first-hand the misery and despair that failing health often brings. I strongly believe in human dignity, that people should be given the choice to take control of this one last aspect of their lives and that their loved ones should be free to assist them (or not). It’s respect for humanity - not weariness of it - that brings me to this conclusion.
Sure, when I’m deeply depressed I might think of ending my life, and sometimes these depressions last for weeks at a time. But that impulse is coming from a different place than my intellectual stand on the right to die. If I were someone else with the authority to grant permission for Danny’s death, I would refuse it, because I understand that Danny is not capable of making a rational choice at those times.
I think other people’s confusion of causation and correlation with regard to my unconventional thoughts is largely due to their simply not knowing enough about mental illnesses and the people who are affected by them. It’s assumed that my problem with depression and anxiety affects me all the time, people often fail to understand that I have significant periods of lucidity that outlast the periods of depression. In those periods, I have ample time in which to think rationally and clearly, and to reflect on whether my beliefs and understandings are the product of my illness or whether they are actually valid conclusions.
Yes, I probably do have experiences in my life that make me more likely to hold some of the opinions I do and feel the things I feel, who doesn’t? But I get frustrated with people thinking that I am incapable of thinking critically and discerning truth, that I am blind to my own condition and to the thought processes of ‘normal’ people. I think if anything my lapses into illness force me to be more critical, particularly of my own thought processes. I can’t take anything for granted.
I guess the point I’m trying to make here is that you can’t attribute any observable aspect of my being to another, as such, at least not without a fair bit of investigation. My mental illness is not a symptom of my polyamory, bisexuality or beliefs about death, neither does it cause any of these. It is another facet of me, it may have developed alongside some of these ideas and beliefs as a result of quite unrelated circumstances, and perhaps the marginality of my positions on these issues makes me more likely than most to experience mental illness, but you cannot attribute one to the other. Evidence from studies of other individuals and groups with these beliefs and conclusions exist, and they simply don’t support a causative hypothesis.
Let's say I have an argument or an unconventional belief - however well thought out and logical, however long it's taken me to come up with it - it's inevitably seen as a sort of twisted logic, I can't possibly be right. Homosexuality or bisexuality? It's because I'm ill. Polyamory? It's because my illness has distorted or warped my views on love and trust. The right to die? That's my depression talking.
People confuse causation with correlation. My bisexuality doesn't cause my depression and anxiety, neither is it a result of it. Polyamory is not a symptom of mental dysfunction, it's a position I take based on my understandings of human biology and psychology, it simply makes more sense to me than compulsory monogamy. I would change my opinion on it if I found evidence to the contrary. And my stance on the right to end one's own life is something I have come to having witnessed first-hand the misery and despair that failing health often brings. I strongly believe in human dignity, that people should be given the choice to take control of this one last aspect of their lives and that their loved ones should be free to assist them (or not). It’s respect for humanity - not weariness of it - that brings me to this conclusion.
Sure, when I’m deeply depressed I might think of ending my life, and sometimes these depressions last for weeks at a time. But that impulse is coming from a different place than my intellectual stand on the right to die. If I were someone else with the authority to grant permission for Danny’s death, I would refuse it, because I understand that Danny is not capable of making a rational choice at those times.
I think other people’s confusion of causation and correlation with regard to my unconventional thoughts is largely due to their simply not knowing enough about mental illnesses and the people who are affected by them. It’s assumed that my problem with depression and anxiety affects me all the time, people often fail to understand that I have significant periods of lucidity that outlast the periods of depression. In those periods, I have ample time in which to think rationally and clearly, and to reflect on whether my beliefs and understandings are the product of my illness or whether they are actually valid conclusions.
Yes, I probably do have experiences in my life that make me more likely to hold some of the opinions I do and feel the things I feel, who doesn’t? But I get frustrated with people thinking that I am incapable of thinking critically and discerning truth, that I am blind to my own condition and to the thought processes of ‘normal’ people. I think if anything my lapses into illness force me to be more critical, particularly of my own thought processes. I can’t take anything for granted.
I guess the point I’m trying to make here is that you can’t attribute any observable aspect of my being to another, as such, at least not without a fair bit of investigation. My mental illness is not a symptom of my polyamory, bisexuality or beliefs about death, neither does it cause any of these. It is another facet of me, it may have developed alongside some of these ideas and beliefs as a result of quite unrelated circumstances, and perhaps the marginality of my positions on these issues makes me more likely than most to experience mental illness, but you cannot attribute one to the other. Evidence from studies of other individuals and groups with these beliefs and conclusions exist, and they simply don’t support a causative hypothesis.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Remembrances and Recriminations: A Year in the Life -- CHAFF 26 2008
So, the last Chaff for the year already!! Wow… the year has just flown by like so many flying monkeys off to terrorise dopey little girls in shiny red shoes and their irritating yappy dogs.
I don’t know about you lot, but for me 08’s been a bit of a rollercoaster… there’ve been plenty of highs, a few lows, some terrifying plungey bits in between and perhaps a bit of puking along the way. It’s got me looking back on the ride, and thinking that a fair bit of what we learn at university isn’t actually in our textbooks and tutorials, it’s what we learn outside of lectures and assignments, in our everyday lives.
So what have I learned this year? Anything??
Well I learned what a Quick Fuck is. The drink, I mean, and how to pour it.
I found out there are dictionaries of sign-language in the library. Seriously – it had never occurred to me that deaf people might occasionally need a dictionary. We live and learn.
I learned the surest way to tell if a guy likes you or not is also the simplest. Girls and homos, listen up. If he likes you, he’ll be physically near you for some reason… he’ll find excuses. If he’s not, he’ll stay away. You can pine and moon over him as much as you like, daydreaming about how perfect he is blah blah, but if he’s not actually around you, it’s a sure bet that he’s not thinking of you the way you’re thinking of him. Guys mostly suck at verbal communication, they avoid it. So if he isn’t sweet on you, or worse, actually doesn’t like you (i.e.: he thinks your breath smells, he draws pictures of you in the back of his books that involve various sharp implements and quantities of blood etc), it won’t come out in his words, he’ll just avoid you. On the other hand, if you see him often, like nearly everyday, if he shows up where he knows you’ll be and grunts, mumbles or stares at you, and if his reason for being there seems really random or silly, that’s almost a guarantee. If he blushes and stammers and stutters around you, that’s another good indication.
I learned that Sarah Silverman is f*cking Matt Damon, that Sarah Palin can see Russia from her house and that that constitutes ‘foreign policy’ for Republicans, that you should never trust a unicorn who wants you to visit Candy Mountain and that penguins can’t really fly, despite what David Attenborough would have you believe. Ah, YouTube, solace for the weary and fount of wisdom for the ages…
I’ve learned that people treat you the way you tell them to treat you. You tell them by your body language, facial expression and tone… what you think about yourself comes out in your non-verbal expression, and people pick up on that. If you don’t like you, you can’t expect anyone else to. And if you go around whining, saying “I can’t do this and that,” or “I’m not clever/brave/popular enough,” in a bid to get sympathy, then you shouldn’t be surprised when people accept that at face value. If you don’t look like you believe in your, nobody else will.
What else?? Making sure you get outside for even ten to fifteen minutes, for a walk or whatever at least once a day, does wonders for your stress levels. Even in winter, just taking the time to forget your schedule, your workload and that essay that was due last Thursday, and getting outdoors for some fresh air, can really help alleviate the anxiety. I’ve started walking through the Esplanade on my way to Massey, even though it’s five minutes out of my way, just so I can hear the breeze in the trees, see the flowers (or in winter, the mud) and just forget all the hassles for a few minutes, and it really lifts my mood. I recommend it to anyone – and if you can’t do it on the way to Massey, there are some nice gardens on campus to have a wander through.
I learned that Bebo is soul-destroying and encourages Obsessive Compulsive tendencies.
I discovered that lecturers are people too, not scary ogres hiding away in their offices who will rip your head off and shit down your throat if you dare to ask a question or ask for an extension (well, MOST of them aren’t). A lot of them actually like students coming to see them. Weird, I know.
I’ve learned that if you don't learn to say 'no' then you end up being expected to do everything, in your flat, your club, even with your family and friends. They just assume that you haven’t got anything else to do, or that you’ve got everything else under control. Rather than take on extras which you can’t handle, overwhelming yourself and inevitably letting other people down when it all turns to custard, it’s better to just say ‘No’ from the outset, explaining why, and if they don’t like it then tough. Your mental and emotional well-being is more important.
What’s more, there are people here at Massey to advise and support you when it all goes pear-shaped or gets out of control… the Student Counselling service is great, even if you just need someone to have a good ol’ bitch to, about flatmates, assignments, work, family, whatever. You don’t have to feel that you gotta do it all by yourself. Then there’s the Student Learning Centre too, they can be really useful at the start of a long or difficult assignment, they’ve got tons of helpful tips and they’re pretty friendly. I got some awesome handy tips from them for studying towards my exams last semester.
I learned that The IT Crowd is the most fuck-awesome British sitcom EVER.
I learned that getting past years’ exam-papers off the library catalogue to see what you’re in for is a REALLY good idea. Best to do it near the start of the semester, though, it puts you in the right frame of mind for your assignments and classes, and it gives you a fair idea of what is and isn’t relevant.
Getting people in your classes together to study really helps too… you can go over stuff you’re not clear on if you’re too shy to ask the lecturer, it’s a good way to make friends, and if you’re like me and don’t live with other students, it’s a great way to stay in study mode after classes are done for the day. AND you can use it as an excuse to talk to that girl/guy/ambiguously gendered person that you’re sweet on.
I’ve learned that writing for CHAFF is a great way to spout off poorly-thought-out opinions and be publicly obnoxious, and get away with it (mostly). Good times…
I think I’ll leave it on that note, actually. If you don’t hear from me next year, it’ll be because William has murdered me and buried my body in a field somewhere. In that event, I leave my Furby collection and Britney Spears albums to Cassie.
Peace y’all,
DannyR.
I don’t know about you lot, but for me 08’s been a bit of a rollercoaster… there’ve been plenty of highs, a few lows, some terrifying plungey bits in between and perhaps a bit of puking along the way. It’s got me looking back on the ride, and thinking that a fair bit of what we learn at university isn’t actually in our textbooks and tutorials, it’s what we learn outside of lectures and assignments, in our everyday lives.
So what have I learned this year? Anything??
Well I learned what a Quick Fuck is. The drink, I mean, and how to pour it.
I found out there are dictionaries of sign-language in the library. Seriously – it had never occurred to me that deaf people might occasionally need a dictionary. We live and learn.
I learned the surest way to tell if a guy likes you or not is also the simplest. Girls and homos, listen up. If he likes you, he’ll be physically near you for some reason… he’ll find excuses. If he’s not, he’ll stay away. You can pine and moon over him as much as you like, daydreaming about how perfect he is blah blah, but if he’s not actually around you, it’s a sure bet that he’s not thinking of you the way you’re thinking of him. Guys mostly suck at verbal communication, they avoid it. So if he isn’t sweet on you, or worse, actually doesn’t like you (i.e.: he thinks your breath smells, he draws pictures of you in the back of his books that involve various sharp implements and quantities of blood etc), it won’t come out in his words, he’ll just avoid you. On the other hand, if you see him often, like nearly everyday, if he shows up where he knows you’ll be and grunts, mumbles or stares at you, and if his reason for being there seems really random or silly, that’s almost a guarantee. If he blushes and stammers and stutters around you, that’s another good indication.
I learned that Sarah Silverman is f*cking Matt Damon, that Sarah Palin can see Russia from her house and that that constitutes ‘foreign policy’ for Republicans, that you should never trust a unicorn who wants you to visit Candy Mountain and that penguins can’t really fly, despite what David Attenborough would have you believe. Ah, YouTube, solace for the weary and fount of wisdom for the ages…
I’ve learned that people treat you the way you tell them to treat you. You tell them by your body language, facial expression and tone… what you think about yourself comes out in your non-verbal expression, and people pick up on that. If you don’t like you, you can’t expect anyone else to. And if you go around whining, saying “I can’t do this and that,” or “I’m not clever/brave/popular enough,” in a bid to get sympathy, then you shouldn’t be surprised when people accept that at face value. If you don’t look like you believe in your, nobody else will.
What else?? Making sure you get outside for even ten to fifteen minutes, for a walk or whatever at least once a day, does wonders for your stress levels. Even in winter, just taking the time to forget your schedule, your workload and that essay that was due last Thursday, and getting outdoors for some fresh air, can really help alleviate the anxiety. I’ve started walking through the Esplanade on my way to Massey, even though it’s five minutes out of my way, just so I can hear the breeze in the trees, see the flowers (or in winter, the mud) and just forget all the hassles for a few minutes, and it really lifts my mood. I recommend it to anyone – and if you can’t do it on the way to Massey, there are some nice gardens on campus to have a wander through.
I learned that Bebo is soul-destroying and encourages Obsessive Compulsive tendencies.
I discovered that lecturers are people too, not scary ogres hiding away in their offices who will rip your head off and shit down your throat if you dare to ask a question or ask for an extension (well, MOST of them aren’t). A lot of them actually like students coming to see them. Weird, I know.
I’ve learned that if you don't learn to say 'no' then you end up being expected to do everything, in your flat, your club, even with your family and friends. They just assume that you haven’t got anything else to do, or that you’ve got everything else under control. Rather than take on extras which you can’t handle, overwhelming yourself and inevitably letting other people down when it all turns to custard, it’s better to just say ‘No’ from the outset, explaining why, and if they don’t like it then tough. Your mental and emotional well-being is more important.
What’s more, there are people here at Massey to advise and support you when it all goes pear-shaped or gets out of control… the Student Counselling service is great, even if you just need someone to have a good ol’ bitch to, about flatmates, assignments, work, family, whatever. You don’t have to feel that you gotta do it all by yourself. Then there’s the Student Learning Centre too, they can be really useful at the start of a long or difficult assignment, they’ve got tons of helpful tips and they’re pretty friendly. I got some awesome handy tips from them for studying towards my exams last semester.
I learned that The IT Crowd is the most fuck-awesome British sitcom EVER.
I learned that getting past years’ exam-papers off the library catalogue to see what you’re in for is a REALLY good idea. Best to do it near the start of the semester, though, it puts you in the right frame of mind for your assignments and classes, and it gives you a fair idea of what is and isn’t relevant.
Getting people in your classes together to study really helps too… you can go over stuff you’re not clear on if you’re too shy to ask the lecturer, it’s a good way to make friends, and if you’re like me and don’t live with other students, it’s a great way to stay in study mode after classes are done for the day. AND you can use it as an excuse to talk to that girl/guy/ambiguously gendered person that you’re sweet on.
I’ve learned that writing for CHAFF is a great way to spout off poorly-thought-out opinions and be publicly obnoxious, and get away with it (mostly). Good times…
I think I’ll leave it on that note, actually. If you don’t hear from me next year, it’ll be because William has murdered me and buried my body in a field somewhere. In that event, I leave my Furby collection and Britney Spears albums to Cassie.
Peace y’all,
DannyR.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Did It Again...
Ok so there's this guy, let's call him E.He has a partner, T, they've been together seven years, they seem really stable, and they obviously love each other a lot.I can't stop flirting with E, he's really sweet and smart, and I think he's pretty handsome. I'm not trying to break them up, I don't think I could compete with T, and I don't want to. E seems to like me a bit though, or maybe I'm just reading too much into it.I have to stop doing this. I just want to be asexual... so why can't I be?
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Good Slut, Bad Slut -- CHAFF 2008
When I chose my life of polyamory, I was desperately worried that my friends would think I was some sort of sex-obsessed selfish pervert, and judging by some of their initial reactions, my fears weren’t entirely unjustified. So I made sure I distanced myself from all those nasty notions of ‘bad’ sluttery we’re all so familiar with; I was the very model of the ‘Ethical Slut.’
What do I mean by that? What is polyamory? Well, it’s a complex, difficult thing to define, but at its most basic it’s a commitment to romantic or sexual relationships that aren’t exclusive. In other words, you may have a relationship with your partner, and he or she may have another partner or more than one, and so might you. You might belong to a triple, instead of the more conventional couple we’re all used to, or even a quad. You might all share a house, or may live in separate homes, dividing your time between partners. Sounds wack, right? But polyamorists will tell you it’s only natural, that the lifelong exclusive romantic relationship we’ve all come to expect in the Western world is a cultural invention, and we can actually choose what works best for us each individually.
There’s a whole new language of relationships being worked out to deal with the complexities of polyamory… it gets pretty complicated. There’s your Primary Partner(s), the person or persons with whom you are in your most significant relationship, then there’s your Secondary and even Tertiary partners with whom you have slightly less involved relationships. To clarify – polyamory isn’t just a being in a couple that fools around a bit on the side, like ‘swinging,’ because you can actually have more than one Primary Partner (i.e.: everyone’s on the same footing), such as in a Triangle relationship. And it gets more complicated than that… your relationship can be closed (i.e.: nobody new can be brought in – that’s called Polyfidelity) or open to anyone (what some polyamorists jokingly call Polyfuckery).
The important point here, the REALLY important bit, is that it’s all honest and consensual – everyone involved knows what’s going on, and is free to participate or not. In other words, it’s NOT ‘cheating,’ because no agreements are being broken. In fact, polyamory is all about honest communication, negotiation and respect for the people you’re involved with. It’s NOT a traditional polygamous harem, where one man has several women at his beck and call (the stereotypical straight-boy dream), in fact, if you go onto any polyamory website you’ll find women are pursuing non-monogamous relationships just as much as men are, and that they’re happy calling the shots*.
Polyamorists say they’re just being realistic, that the Number One relationship hang-up in the Western world is ‘cheating’ and being ‘cheated on,’ that dishonesty around non-monogamy is widespread and wrecks a lot of otherwise good relationships, and that they’re just accepting human nature for what it is and moving past all the guilt and hurt by dealing with the issues in ways that are respectful and honest. They don’t think polyamory is right for everyone, they stress that it’s NOT a fix for a bad relationship (in fact it’ll just make a bad relationship worse), and they point out that it takes work – LOTS of work, and good communication skills. In fact, think of all the work that goes into a monogamous relationship, and multiply that by the number of partners in the poly relationship, and that should be enough to put you off, right? But even so, polyamorists will tell you it’s worth it, that “love shared is love multiplied.”
What do I mean by that? What is polyamory? Well, it’s a complex, difficult thing to define, but at its most basic it’s a commitment to romantic or sexual relationships that aren’t exclusive. In other words, you may have a relationship with your partner, and he or she may have another partner or more than one, and so might you. You might belong to a triple, instead of the more conventional couple we’re all used to, or even a quad. You might all share a house, or may live in separate homes, dividing your time between partners. Sounds wack, right? But polyamorists will tell you it’s only natural, that the lifelong exclusive romantic relationship we’ve all come to expect in the Western world is a cultural invention, and we can actually choose what works best for us each individually.
There’s a whole new language of relationships being worked out to deal with the complexities of polyamory… it gets pretty complicated. There’s your Primary Partner(s), the person or persons with whom you are in your most significant relationship, then there’s your Secondary and even Tertiary partners with whom you have slightly less involved relationships. To clarify – polyamory isn’t just a being in a couple that fools around a bit on the side, like ‘swinging,’ because you can actually have more than one Primary Partner (i.e.: everyone’s on the same footing), such as in a Triangle relationship. And it gets more complicated than that… your relationship can be closed (i.e.: nobody new can be brought in – that’s called Polyfidelity) or open to anyone (what some polyamorists jokingly call Polyfuckery).
The important point here, the REALLY important bit, is that it’s all honest and consensual – everyone involved knows what’s going on, and is free to participate or not. In other words, it’s NOT ‘cheating,’ because no agreements are being broken. In fact, polyamory is all about honest communication, negotiation and respect for the people you’re involved with. It’s NOT a traditional polygamous harem, where one man has several women at his beck and call (the stereotypical straight-boy dream), in fact, if you go onto any polyamory website you’ll find women are pursuing non-monogamous relationships just as much as men are, and that they’re happy calling the shots*.
Polyamorists say they’re just being realistic, that the Number One relationship hang-up in the Western world is ‘cheating’ and being ‘cheated on,’ that dishonesty around non-monogamy is widespread and wrecks a lot of otherwise good relationships, and that they’re just accepting human nature for what it is and moving past all the guilt and hurt by dealing with the issues in ways that are respectful and honest. They don’t think polyamory is right for everyone, they stress that it’s NOT a fix for a bad relationship (in fact it’ll just make a bad relationship worse), and they point out that it takes work – LOTS of work, and good communication skills. In fact, think of all the work that goes into a monogamous relationship, and multiply that by the number of partners in the poly relationship, and that should be enough to put you off, right? But even so, polyamorists will tell you it’s worth it, that “love shared is love multiplied.”
The polyamorist is careful to mention that it’s about love, not sex, and very often they reject labels like heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual when talking about themselves because those terms lead people to focus on the nookie – who gets it, with whom, and how often. Poly people frequently point out that they often have fewer sexual partners than people who practise serial monogamy, and that sometimes their relationships don’t even involve sex at all. A lot of polyamorists say that friendship IS a kind of polyamory… we don’t expect our friends not to have other friends, we accept that they might not want exactly the same things as we do, we let them live and grow and learn from others. It takes a lot of trust, great communication skills, and a willingness to tackle the hard stuff head on (like jealousy and insecurity).
The long and the short of it is that people who practice polyamory make a distinction between what they do and what people generally think of when they think about non-monogamy, which is dishonesty, deception, and rampant, indiscriminate promiscuity. Look at us, poly people say, we’re respectable!!
In other words, they don’t want to look like the ‘bad’ slut.
Who is this ‘bad’ slut? We’re all familiar with her/him. S/he is villainized in television, movies and popular song, because s/he has casual sexual relationships that don’t involve love, whether through ‘cheating,’ swinging, or just good ol’ fashioned promiscuous singlehood. The ‘bad’ slut ISN’T someone who cheats on a partner because s/he’s met someone s/he likes better and then leaves the first partner for the second, that’s pretty commonplace these days and, while hurtful, is generally accepted as just doing serial monogamy badly. No, the ‘bad’ slut is usually female (when it’s a guy his whoring around is usually celebrated – double standards people!!), s/he’s someone who enjoys sex for the sake of it and is happy to have it outside of relationships. And in our contemporary culture, that’s just not on.
Sociologists tell us that this state of affairs was set up by heterosexual couples hundreds of years ago, when romantic love stopped being just an adulterous liaison in the royal courts of Europe and started being seen (in the West at least) as a good basis for marriage. It’s not too much of a jump from sex as an expression of love within marriage to sex as an expression of love before marriage, as long as the two people do actually intend to get married. And from that it’s no big step to sex as an expression of love without marriage ever actually entering the equation, and to loving sexual relations between people of the same sex who aren’t allowed to get married. But it’s a much bigger jump from this kind of sex as part of a loving, intimate relationship to sex just for the fun of it, outside of a relationship, with whoever we want to have it with. That’s why promiscuity is still frowned on, why gay and lesbian couples can be together and be respectable and accepted, as long as they keep the sex in relationships.
As a culture, we don’t like people having casual sex, we tend to think it’s something you grow out of, or happily give up when you meet “the One.” Even recent shows like Sex and the City, for all their boasting of being about empowered women enjoying their sexuality, ultimately preach the old lesson that the most satisfying and fulfilled sex life is one that leads (even in the most roundabout way) to the traditional “Happily Ever After.” Maybe that’s what’s behind the recent rise in the popularity of polyamory: it’s non-monogamy, but it’s still playing by the rules. Kinda.
But there’s a problem with polyamorists calling themselves the “Ethical Sluts.” It implies that polyamory is the only ethical non-monogamy, it implies that people who are happy to enjoy sex outside of committed relationships are incapable of being honest with or respectful of their sexual partners. Essentially it reinforces all those old notions about the ‘bad’ slut, condemning all those whose non-monogamy takes other forms, such as the open marriage, friends-with-benefits or fuck-buddies, or sexually active but confirmed singledom.
Personally, I’m happiest in committed emotional relationships with at most two or three people, whether or not it involves sex. But I have plenty of friends who similarly aren’t the monogamous type, who don’t identify as polyamorous, and who are quite capable of being responsible and considerate of their sexual partners’ feelings and bodies. And then I have those weird and wonderful friends who are somewhere-in-between, being in honest, committed triples, quads etc, and still “playing the field.” Good on them, I say, if that’s what makes them happiest.
And yes, I have plenty of friends in exclusive, monogamous partnerships who are perfectly happy that way, and I’m perfectly happy for them too. I cry at their weddings and civil unions, I celebrate their engagement parties and anniversaries. There really is so much diversity out there, and it’s all beautiful. I wish everybody could see that.
* For more info about polyamory, see (among others):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0SX6SILmDs
http://www.polyamoryonline.org/
http://www.polyamory.org/
DannyR
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Nihilism -- CHAFF 2008
I found a quote on the net somewhere that said nihilism is where you go when you can’t find anything to believe in.
According to Wikipedia it’s “the view that the world, and especially human existence, is without meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value.” It’s often defined as belief in nothing, but from what I’ve read that’s not entirely true... we should say faith in nothing to be more accurate. Faith is a firm belief in something where there isn’t or can’t be any supporting evidence. Nihilists see faith as dangerous because when we’re relying on faith we aren’t using our faculties of common sense, reason and critical analysis. According to Nietzsche (you know him – the “God is dead” guy – life of the party), faith is simply “not wanting to know.”
Not wanting to know? Crazy, right? Well, yeah. But understandable maybe. Who wants to know anyway?? It’s a big scary world out there, it’s hard to understand sometimes, so of course most of us would rather just accept on faith whatever sounds like a fair explanation. It gets exhausting asking questions all the time and never having any certainty, and realistically, nobody’s going to be able to think through absolutely EVERY issue and read EVERY book. Especially in the modern Western nations. I’m not really surprised that in the most technologically advanced and modernized societies, like the USA, Australia and New Zealand, so many people believe in a cosmic zombie who communicates with them each individually by means of telepathy... our lives are a lot more sped up and full of stress and hassle in comparison to the rest of the world. We just don’t have the time to think things through.
Sometimes I think that if any of us could see how complicated the world really is it would be enough to drive us mad. But what the nihilists are getting at is that though it’s comforting to just think we know the answers without having to ask the questions, we’re fooling ourselves, and making things worse for ourselves and others in doing so. How? Well, let’s just pull a random example out of our collective arse, shall we? AIDS is killing thousands of people every day, and causes immeasurable human suffering, all around the world but especially in poorest nations. People get AIDS by becoming infected with HIV, most often through transmission of sexual fluids, and this can be prevented by using condoms during sex. There’s more to it than that, but that’s good enough for our purposes. We could fix the problem and alleviate a lot of the suffering if people wore the damn condoms, but faith has stuck its beak in and convinced a whole lot of those people that the father of the aforementioned cosmic zombie, who lives up in the sky and watches everything they do (the dirty perve) will throw them in a lake of fire to burn forever if they wear condoms when they fuck. And other well-meaning faithful people, mindful of the imperilled souls of those people in the populations where HIV is rampant, are kindly puncturing the condom packets before the poor sods even get them, just to be sure that no latex stands between souls and salvation. Faith makes us do dumb things, so nihilism begins to look like an attractive alternative. It’s the rejection of any belief that relies on faith, whether religious or secular.
Another defining characteristic of nihilism is the rejection of the idea that things have a final purpose. Nihilists believe everything is random, that there is no preordained final destination or revelation. In other words, you’re not going to heaven. It doesn’t exist and what’s more, it’s pointless to live your life in some sort of preparation for it. So go on, masturbate, get drunk, call your mother a herpes-riddled crack-whore... it doesn’t matter. You won’t get punished for it in the hereafter (though your mum might burn all your stuff and kick you out on the street). In a nutshell, nihilists reject the teleological arguments offered by most religions. Teleology is the idea that the universe functions a bit like a machine according to some sort of god-given plan or design, and it’s not restricted to the world of religion either. A common, almost sacred belief among people in the secular West is that you and your significant other were ‘made for each other,’ or if you haven’t got one at the moment, that she or he is out there somewhere waiting for you, that it’s ‘meant to be.’ Well the nihilists have got news for you... there was nothing inevitable about you finding that one particular person, there was no plan, no destiny, it was all just chance, and you only think it’s something magical and special because it feels nice, but you fail to see that you probably would have felt the same about almost anyone else. They might remind you ever so politely (or more likely, somewhat sharply) that everyone else is feeling something pretty similar for their own special-someone, you’re just too blind to see it, so shut the fuck up. Nihilists also reject Marxism, Buddhism, and any other set of beliefs that rely on teleology. There is no destiny, there can be no progress.
Nihilism is virtually synonymous with scepticism. There are two main branches: social or existential nihilism, and political nihilism. Let’s start with the existential variety. It’s passive, influenced by eastern philosophy and mysticism, and concerns itself primarily with isolation, human suffering and the futility and hopelessness of existence. It’s bloody depressing. Most people, when you mention nihilism, will think this is what you mean. In the face of all the meaninglessness and randomness, the only coping mechanism is detachment – just stop giving a shit. Don’t do anything for anyone, don’t bother with worthy causes, just don’t care, because ultimately it’s a waste of time.
Now, don’t confuse existential nihilism with depression, though that certainly follows on from it a lot of the time. Personally I’m inclined toward depression when I’m feeling worthless. When I ask someone out or let them know I’m interested and they say “Fuck no, I need space, I’m not ready for a relationship just now, you’re sweet and everything, let’s just be friends, STOP STALKING ME!!!”, I usually take it to me mean that I’m not tall enough, attractive enough, smart enough etc, and I inevitably begin saying to myself: “What’s the point in trying anyway, I may as well stay in my room, give up my hopes and get used to being by myself.” But kids, that’s not quite full blown existential nihilism, because I’m not saying that there’s no point in anyone trying to get laid, only that there’s no point in me trying. Important difference. Even at my most whiny and self-loathing, I would still agree that most people can and should try to find happiness in the whole love and romance thingy.
Political nihilism, the other main branch of nihilism, is active, revolutionary and at once destructive and creative. It’s about social structures and authority. Political nihilism states that things are in such a bad state that the only real option left to us is to smash them up, and whether or not we can rebuild we will at least have done some good. Being a political nihilist is about being in the here and now... rejecting all religious and philosophical debate and all the metaphysical circular reasoning that it ultimately leads to. It’s about challenging all the assumptions we base our values on, even equality and justice. There’s no future goal that we’re aiming for, no reformed society that’s more tolerant or diverse or equitable or prosperous, or at least no goal that’s more important than the present. It’s about realising there’s no life but this one, and making the most of it. It’s about taking responsibility..... if there’s no higher power then your success or failure is up to you, and you alone. Another nihilism quote I found sums it up nicely... “Each human life has the potential, but unless one strives to be a god, they are only a worm.” We can do anything... it’s up to us whether we repeat the patterns of our forbears, killing and subjugating each other for material gain and dominance and letting our masters profit at our expense, or whether we control our lives and reap the benefits for ourselves.
It’s true that nihilism, like anarchism, is usually equated with violence and terrorism, and there’s certainly historical justification. Nihilists generally reckon that violence is not inherent in their philosophies, but I’m inclined to think that if nihilism is your philosophy you’re more likely to be aggressive. Nihilists say there is nothing above man, there is no objective moral, ethical reality, but is that really the case? The argument can be made that we carry our moral absolutes with us, encoded into our brains. I think it’s genetic, we’ve survived as a species because we know instinctively how to interact with each other. We’re a social species, we have survived because we can cooperate, and we know, each of us, how to do this, how to avoid conflict. Something in our brains, other than fear of repercussions, tells us a behaviour is wrong. Why else, for instance, would all these religions around the world have come up with such basic moral tenets as don’t kill each other? Don’t torture people for fun?? And remember to put the trash out???
Just because there’s no ultimate point to anything, and even though nothing I actually accomplish is going to last forever, that doesn’t mean there’s no sense in doing it anyway, does it? In fact, doesn’t that make human endeavour a more precious and amazing thing? Think about it, out of all the randomness, out of all the meaninglessness, we are able to create something that has meaning for ourselves and others. That meaning might be quite arbitrary, we each might see the same thing quite differently, but isn’t that kind of beautiful in itself? There might not be any reason, in the big scheme of things, for me to get out there and make a noise about discrimination, pollution or the suffering of others, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t do it. It will mean something to me, I’ll be taking control, making something out of the nothingness, making the world what I want it to be. And maybe, just maybe, someone else will see the world the way I do.
And that’s meaning enough for me.
Danny Rudd
According to Wikipedia it’s “the view that the world, and especially human existence, is without meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value.” It’s often defined as belief in nothing, but from what I’ve read that’s not entirely true... we should say faith in nothing to be more accurate. Faith is a firm belief in something where there isn’t or can’t be any supporting evidence. Nihilists see faith as dangerous because when we’re relying on faith we aren’t using our faculties of common sense, reason and critical analysis. According to Nietzsche (you know him – the “God is dead” guy – life of the party), faith is simply “not wanting to know.”
Not wanting to know? Crazy, right? Well, yeah. But understandable maybe. Who wants to know anyway?? It’s a big scary world out there, it’s hard to understand sometimes, so of course most of us would rather just accept on faith whatever sounds like a fair explanation. It gets exhausting asking questions all the time and never having any certainty, and realistically, nobody’s going to be able to think through absolutely EVERY issue and read EVERY book. Especially in the modern Western nations. I’m not really surprised that in the most technologically advanced and modernized societies, like the USA, Australia and New Zealand, so many people believe in a cosmic zombie who communicates with them each individually by means of telepathy... our lives are a lot more sped up and full of stress and hassle in comparison to the rest of the world. We just don’t have the time to think things through.
Sometimes I think that if any of us could see how complicated the world really is it would be enough to drive us mad. But what the nihilists are getting at is that though it’s comforting to just think we know the answers without having to ask the questions, we’re fooling ourselves, and making things worse for ourselves and others in doing so. How? Well, let’s just pull a random example out of our collective arse, shall we? AIDS is killing thousands of people every day, and causes immeasurable human suffering, all around the world but especially in poorest nations. People get AIDS by becoming infected with HIV, most often through transmission of sexual fluids, and this can be prevented by using condoms during sex. There’s more to it than that, but that’s good enough for our purposes. We could fix the problem and alleviate a lot of the suffering if people wore the damn condoms, but faith has stuck its beak in and convinced a whole lot of those people that the father of the aforementioned cosmic zombie, who lives up in the sky and watches everything they do (the dirty perve) will throw them in a lake of fire to burn forever if they wear condoms when they fuck. And other well-meaning faithful people, mindful of the imperilled souls of those people in the populations where HIV is rampant, are kindly puncturing the condom packets before the poor sods even get them, just to be sure that no latex stands between souls and salvation. Faith makes us do dumb things, so nihilism begins to look like an attractive alternative. It’s the rejection of any belief that relies on faith, whether religious or secular.
Another defining characteristic of nihilism is the rejection of the idea that things have a final purpose. Nihilists believe everything is random, that there is no preordained final destination or revelation. In other words, you’re not going to heaven. It doesn’t exist and what’s more, it’s pointless to live your life in some sort of preparation for it. So go on, masturbate, get drunk, call your mother a herpes-riddled crack-whore... it doesn’t matter. You won’t get punished for it in the hereafter (though your mum might burn all your stuff and kick you out on the street). In a nutshell, nihilists reject the teleological arguments offered by most religions. Teleology is the idea that the universe functions a bit like a machine according to some sort of god-given plan or design, and it’s not restricted to the world of religion either. A common, almost sacred belief among people in the secular West is that you and your significant other were ‘made for each other,’ or if you haven’t got one at the moment, that she or he is out there somewhere waiting for you, that it’s ‘meant to be.’ Well the nihilists have got news for you... there was nothing inevitable about you finding that one particular person, there was no plan, no destiny, it was all just chance, and you only think it’s something magical and special because it feels nice, but you fail to see that you probably would have felt the same about almost anyone else. They might remind you ever so politely (or more likely, somewhat sharply) that everyone else is feeling something pretty similar for their own special-someone, you’re just too blind to see it, so shut the fuck up. Nihilists also reject Marxism, Buddhism, and any other set of beliefs that rely on teleology. There is no destiny, there can be no progress.
Nihilism is virtually synonymous with scepticism. There are two main branches: social or existential nihilism, and political nihilism. Let’s start with the existential variety. It’s passive, influenced by eastern philosophy and mysticism, and concerns itself primarily with isolation, human suffering and the futility and hopelessness of existence. It’s bloody depressing. Most people, when you mention nihilism, will think this is what you mean. In the face of all the meaninglessness and randomness, the only coping mechanism is detachment – just stop giving a shit. Don’t do anything for anyone, don’t bother with worthy causes, just don’t care, because ultimately it’s a waste of time.
Now, don’t confuse existential nihilism with depression, though that certainly follows on from it a lot of the time. Personally I’m inclined toward depression when I’m feeling worthless. When I ask someone out or let them know I’m interested and they say “Fuck no, I need space, I’m not ready for a relationship just now, you’re sweet and everything, let’s just be friends, STOP STALKING ME!!!”, I usually take it to me mean that I’m not tall enough, attractive enough, smart enough etc, and I inevitably begin saying to myself: “What’s the point in trying anyway, I may as well stay in my room, give up my hopes and get used to being by myself.” But kids, that’s not quite full blown existential nihilism, because I’m not saying that there’s no point in anyone trying to get laid, only that there’s no point in me trying. Important difference. Even at my most whiny and self-loathing, I would still agree that most people can and should try to find happiness in the whole love and romance thingy.
Political nihilism, the other main branch of nihilism, is active, revolutionary and at once destructive and creative. It’s about social structures and authority. Political nihilism states that things are in such a bad state that the only real option left to us is to smash them up, and whether or not we can rebuild we will at least have done some good. Being a political nihilist is about being in the here and now... rejecting all religious and philosophical debate and all the metaphysical circular reasoning that it ultimately leads to. It’s about challenging all the assumptions we base our values on, even equality and justice. There’s no future goal that we’re aiming for, no reformed society that’s more tolerant or diverse or equitable or prosperous, or at least no goal that’s more important than the present. It’s about realising there’s no life but this one, and making the most of it. It’s about taking responsibility..... if there’s no higher power then your success or failure is up to you, and you alone. Another nihilism quote I found sums it up nicely... “Each human life has the potential, but unless one strives to be a god, they are only a worm.” We can do anything... it’s up to us whether we repeat the patterns of our forbears, killing and subjugating each other for material gain and dominance and letting our masters profit at our expense, or whether we control our lives and reap the benefits for ourselves.
It’s true that nihilism, like anarchism, is usually equated with violence and terrorism, and there’s certainly historical justification. Nihilists generally reckon that violence is not inherent in their philosophies, but I’m inclined to think that if nihilism is your philosophy you’re more likely to be aggressive. Nihilists say there is nothing above man, there is no objective moral, ethical reality, but is that really the case? The argument can be made that we carry our moral absolutes with us, encoded into our brains. I think it’s genetic, we’ve survived as a species because we know instinctively how to interact with each other. We’re a social species, we have survived because we can cooperate, and we know, each of us, how to do this, how to avoid conflict. Something in our brains, other than fear of repercussions, tells us a behaviour is wrong. Why else, for instance, would all these religions around the world have come up with such basic moral tenets as don’t kill each other? Don’t torture people for fun?? And remember to put the trash out???
Just because there’s no ultimate point to anything, and even though nothing I actually accomplish is going to last forever, that doesn’t mean there’s no sense in doing it anyway, does it? In fact, doesn’t that make human endeavour a more precious and amazing thing? Think about it, out of all the randomness, out of all the meaninglessness, we are able to create something that has meaning for ourselves and others. That meaning might be quite arbitrary, we each might see the same thing quite differently, but isn’t that kind of beautiful in itself? There might not be any reason, in the big scheme of things, for me to get out there and make a noise about discrimination, pollution or the suffering of others, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t do it. It will mean something to me, I’ll be taking control, making something out of the nothingness, making the world what I want it to be. And maybe, just maybe, someone else will see the world the way I do.
And that’s meaning enough for me.
Danny Rudd
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
I want to PAY someone to bash my skull in with a crowbar... any takers??
I want to kill myself.
My flatmate has a new boyfriend, who's a head nurse at Welly hospital, and drives up here to see him every week. It's pretty rotten of me to be unhappy that my flatmate's happy, but, well, I am. Also, Hunky, one of the guys I've loved this many years now, has graduated and has a motorbike, so all's looking rosy for him, and his ex, who I also loved, is heading this way for a visit, and he hates me, even though I miss him. Lezzer #1 is torn between the ex-girlfriend and a new girl who's interested, my most recent ex seems to be reconnecting with his family and is happy enough, my other recent ex is engaged to that trollop faux-lesbian of his. The straight guy I have a crush on, and have done for ages, Mister P, ignores me, my own family is getting all close etc, and I can't because I'm just so angry with them, and I'm falling behind majorly at Massey and don't think I can make it up in two weeks... TWO WEEKS!!! That's all that's left of Semester One. I don't think I can handle another semester. I don't think I can handle being alive.
I want to die.
My flatmate has a new boyfriend, who's a head nurse at Welly hospital, and drives up here to see him every week. It's pretty rotten of me to be unhappy that my flatmate's happy, but, well, I am. Also, Hunky, one of the guys I've loved this many years now, has graduated and has a motorbike, so all's looking rosy for him, and his ex, who I also loved, is heading this way for a visit, and he hates me, even though I miss him. Lezzer #1 is torn between the ex-girlfriend and a new girl who's interested, my most recent ex seems to be reconnecting with his family and is happy enough, my other recent ex is engaged to that trollop faux-lesbian of his. The straight guy I have a crush on, and have done for ages, Mister P, ignores me, my own family is getting all close etc, and I can't because I'm just so angry with them, and I'm falling behind majorly at Massey and don't think I can make it up in two weeks... TWO WEEKS!!! That's all that's left of Semester One. I don't think I can handle another semester. I don't think I can handle being alive.
I want to die.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
On Love, And Other calamities (Part One)
The feelings we experience through different stages of love are due to chemicals that we produce within our bodies, hormones that wash over our brains, compelling us to act in ways that are mistaken for fate or folly. Ask any old married couple, and they'll tell you that the excitement of initial infatuation becomes deeper attachment with the passage of time, but inevitably the excitement fades to little more than memory.
There are three stages of what we call love: Lust, Romantic Love, and Attachment, each different, but all in the service of the biological imperative to successfully reproduce. Lust gets us hunting for potential mates, Romantic Love narrows our focus down to just one individual, and Attachment encourages us to stick with this partner long enough to raise children. Each of these stages is characterised by the presence of different levels of certain hormones in a person's circulatory system and neurochemistry.
Let's look at Lust first. We're all aware of this initial stage of love, that jolt of excitement and piqued curiosity when we are in close proximity to a person to whom we are mysteriously attracted. Lust would seem to be a primarily visual phenomenon, and certainly our cultural heritage deals with it in such a way. The words of Jesus were that "anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart," and further that "if your eye offends you, pluck it out" (Matthew 5:28-29), hence the Religious Right's almost fanatical vendetta against pornography and infidelity.
We now know that it's quite natural to 'keep an eye out' for potential mates, but increasingly scientists are discovering that Lust is fundamentally a chemical phenomenon.It has been found that women are more aromatically susceptible than men - that is, they have a better sense of smell - perhaps because they have evolved to regard smell as a significant indicator of a partner's suitability, being the one stuck with the most work in reproduction. Not only is a woman's sex cell, the gigantic egg or ovum, more biologically costly to produce than the man's millions of tiny sperm cells, she has to carry the developing embryo within her body, nourishing it at her own expense, and this duty does not cease when once the offspring is born, she then has to breastfeed, and gather foods for her infant for years afterward! The man, by contrast, has the option of disappearing after the act of copulation, no further expense incurred.
Smell is indicative of the state of an individual's immune system - we're programmed to seek partners with different immunity to our own so that our offspring will have the strongest immune system possible and thus a better chance of surviving. Heterosexual couples with similar immune systems have higher incidence of spontaneous miscarriage during pregnancy, and frequently have more trouble conceiving in the first place. Interestingly, the Contraceptive Pill confuses a woman's sense of smell to prefer a partner with a scent similar to her own. Consequently, perhaps, among the top complaints heard by divorce lawyers from women is "I can't stand his smell." But on the lighter side, once two people are emotionally attached they're disposed to see (and smell) each other in a more positive light.
Lust is also characterised by a surge of testosterone in both men and women. It is a common misconception that testosterone is the 'male hormone,' but this simply is not true. While it certainly is responsible for the development of male anatomy and secondary sex characteristics (body hair, deeper voice, sperm production) at specific points in the individual's life, it is by no means a chemical exclusive to men. Testosterone, it seems, arouses an individual, be they male or female, in readiness for copulation. Men have more interest in sex, (and in having sex more often, at that) because they have a set of glands that are devoted to full-time production of testosterone. A woman's sexual response is tempered by which stage she is at in her monthly menstrual cycle, as testosterone production waxes and wanes.
Romantic Love is the (far from inevitable) next step in the process, and is quite distinct, introducing the major chemical player in romance, a hormone known as dopamine. Dopamine and norepinephrine levels surge when a person is confronted by the unknown. These are the same chemicals responsible for addiction - and for experiencing elation, hope, despair and rage.In the initial stage of Romantic Love, they cause such exhilaration that we forget to eat or sleep. This is commonly referred to as 'lovesickness,' for indeed throughout history it has been regarded as a sort of madness or illness. It is only comparatively recently in Western societies, in the last two hundred years roughly, that being 'In Love' has come to be seen as a good foundation for marriage and the raising of children.
This wave of dopamine, however, eventually subsides, and is followed by vasopressin and oxytocin, hormones that lead to long-lasting Attachment. These are 'Cuddle Chemicals,' released during sex; they give us the 'warm fuzzies,' making us want to stick together. They condition both partners so that they will maintain a pair bond for the successful rearing of offspring. Oxytocin, in particular, may actually subdue levels of unruly dopamine and norepinephrine, taking away that 'high' of initial infatuation, effectively 'squashing' Romantic Love.
There is something about the way our society is structured - our Western 'rules of propriety' - handed down through Christian tradition and surviving today in secular form - that creates and bolsters the conditions to capitalise on the natural high which accompanies the initial dopamine and norepinephrine surge. We commonly believe that 'dating' is a sensible practice put in place so that we may 'shop around' to find a good match, but perhaps it serves a further purpose. The rules of propriety that accompany dating (no sex before marriage, no sex on a first date and so on) are a restriction or barrier when you have found that one 'special someone,' they serve to frustrate the natural impulse and prolong the 'romantic high,' until marriage and consummation, for it is well known that when it comes to romance, you always want what you cannot have.
This delay may in fact bring about an even more powerful wave of Cuddle Chemicals than would otherwise be the case, leading to even longer-lasting attachment. Gay and lesbian communities in the Western world largely lack such societally-imposed restrictions, and indeed consummation of the natural procreative impulse, though directed at a partner of the same gender and thus confounding its biological imperative, follows swiftly in these communities. It is perhaps unsurprising that gay and lesbian relationships generally do not last nearly as long as 'straight' partnerships, when the conditions for lifelong partnership are largely a product of rules designed to frustrate the urges of 'normal' heterosexual mating pairs.
The problem with the 'Cuddle Chemical' stage is that it too begins to wane with time, as sex becomes less frequent. Men in particular are naturally programmed to seek out new sexual partners, and will inevitably begin to look around, being none too choosy. And women, far from being the passive objects they have been made out to be in much of Western tradition, are actually programmed to be continuously on the lookout to 'trade up' and secure a partner with better genetics, more resources and greater dominance (hence the appeal of shopping and wealthy husbands). And thus even the most the most stable, affectionate couple is vulnerable to infidelity or dissolution in time.
Novelty makes your brain and body pump out the exciting hormones, norepinephrine and dopamine, so if you find attraction waning, if your partnership has lost it's excitement and you want to persevere, then do new and varied things and fall in love all over again. You can fool your brain into seeing your partner as a new one. Studies show that couples who share more exciting experiences (such as entering competitions together and travelling together on vacations to new places) report more happiness and satisfaction. This may in fact explain the success of arranged marriages in other cultures, for while we in the West do not generally like the idea, the anxiety, suspense, and the thrill of Chinese or Indian wedding pageantry may in fact drive dopamine levels up so high that romantic love positively flourishes.
We have other tools to bring on the dopamine. Humour is one of the best. And as if you needed an excuse, having sex elevates testosterone levels in both males and females, which in turn revs up the dopamine, allowing partners to recapture the thrill of romantic love, at least temporarily. The simplest way, however, is enforced separation or a good old screaming row. Arguments trigger a rush of adrenaline, which kicks in during risky, new situations. Separation prolongs the production of dopamine, you want the person more as the barriers to togetherness are increased, which increases the frustration and makes the reward of being together so much richer. The problem with this is that both partners have to be in-sync for what's comfortable or challenging, and not many of us are. Our drives for novelty can be unifying or divisive once the exhilaration of courtship gives way to the routines of partnership.
Most enduring couples, it is found, are seeking similar levels of stimulation. People who seek high levels of stimulation (high sensation seekers) are more likely to engage in risky behaviour, explore unknown territory, experiment with drugs and alcohol and seek out a variety or larger number of sexual partners. High sensation seekers have low levels of dopamine (oddly enough) and serotonin, probably because of low levels of monoamine oxidase (MAO), which regulates dopamine and other neurotransmitters. Low serotonin levels go hand in hand with impulsive behaviour. Men tend to have lower MAO levels than women, which is not to say that they are deficient, but rather that this characteristic serves the man's quite different biological reproductive agenda (more on sex differences between men and women later).
A couple made up of two high sensation seekers is more likely to dissolve out of boredom, and this is almost certainly a factor in the generally rapid dissolution of male-male couples. A couple where one partner is a high sensation seeker and the other is a low sensation seeker will not easily understand each other (the majority of couples fall into this category, this being largely the state of the heterosexual population). The happiest couples are comprised of two people who aren't looking for high excitement, but lest you hastily conclude that lesbian relationships must be more content than any other couple form, it must be noted that even within each biological sex there may be vast disparities in individuals' levels of sensation seeking. It's not always obvious in the beginning stages of a relationship what level your potential partner is.
So there we have it: a brief overview of the chemistry of love and sex. Just as an aside, it should perhaps be noted that the hormones that incite us to couplehood and attachment actually decrease our individual testosterone production, making sex progressively less interesting over time. Couples who maintain interesting and satisfying sexual relationships generally have a lot of fights, go through periods of separation and reunion, have rich fantasy lives or make allowances for infidelity or the possibility (even if unacted upon) of sex with others. But lest you come away from this brief essay gloomy or disillusioned, take comfort in the fact that there are plenty of other areas in a relationship that may deepen and become richer with time, and that long-term Attachment is something wonderful in and of itself.
It's not all about sex.
DannyR
There are three stages of what we call love: Lust, Romantic Love, and Attachment, each different, but all in the service of the biological imperative to successfully reproduce. Lust gets us hunting for potential mates, Romantic Love narrows our focus down to just one individual, and Attachment encourages us to stick with this partner long enough to raise children. Each of these stages is characterised by the presence of different levels of certain hormones in a person's circulatory system and neurochemistry.
Let's look at Lust first. We're all aware of this initial stage of love, that jolt of excitement and piqued curiosity when we are in close proximity to a person to whom we are mysteriously attracted. Lust would seem to be a primarily visual phenomenon, and certainly our cultural heritage deals with it in such a way. The words of Jesus were that "anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart," and further that "if your eye offends you, pluck it out" (Matthew 5:28-29), hence the Religious Right's almost fanatical vendetta against pornography and infidelity.
We now know that it's quite natural to 'keep an eye out' for potential mates, but increasingly scientists are discovering that Lust is fundamentally a chemical phenomenon.It has been found that women are more aromatically susceptible than men - that is, they have a better sense of smell - perhaps because they have evolved to regard smell as a significant indicator of a partner's suitability, being the one stuck with the most work in reproduction. Not only is a woman's sex cell, the gigantic egg or ovum, more biologically costly to produce than the man's millions of tiny sperm cells, she has to carry the developing embryo within her body, nourishing it at her own expense, and this duty does not cease when once the offspring is born, she then has to breastfeed, and gather foods for her infant for years afterward! The man, by contrast, has the option of disappearing after the act of copulation, no further expense incurred.
Smell is indicative of the state of an individual's immune system - we're programmed to seek partners with different immunity to our own so that our offspring will have the strongest immune system possible and thus a better chance of surviving. Heterosexual couples with similar immune systems have higher incidence of spontaneous miscarriage during pregnancy, and frequently have more trouble conceiving in the first place. Interestingly, the Contraceptive Pill confuses a woman's sense of smell to prefer a partner with a scent similar to her own. Consequently, perhaps, among the top complaints heard by divorce lawyers from women is "I can't stand his smell." But on the lighter side, once two people are emotionally attached they're disposed to see (and smell) each other in a more positive light.
Lust is also characterised by a surge of testosterone in both men and women. It is a common misconception that testosterone is the 'male hormone,' but this simply is not true. While it certainly is responsible for the development of male anatomy and secondary sex characteristics (body hair, deeper voice, sperm production) at specific points in the individual's life, it is by no means a chemical exclusive to men. Testosterone, it seems, arouses an individual, be they male or female, in readiness for copulation. Men have more interest in sex, (and in having sex more often, at that) because they have a set of glands that are devoted to full-time production of testosterone. A woman's sexual response is tempered by which stage she is at in her monthly menstrual cycle, as testosterone production waxes and wanes.
Romantic Love is the (far from inevitable) next step in the process, and is quite distinct, introducing the major chemical player in romance, a hormone known as dopamine. Dopamine and norepinephrine levels surge when a person is confronted by the unknown. These are the same chemicals responsible for addiction - and for experiencing elation, hope, despair and rage.In the initial stage of Romantic Love, they cause such exhilaration that we forget to eat or sleep. This is commonly referred to as 'lovesickness,' for indeed throughout history it has been regarded as a sort of madness or illness. It is only comparatively recently in Western societies, in the last two hundred years roughly, that being 'In Love' has come to be seen as a good foundation for marriage and the raising of children.
This wave of dopamine, however, eventually subsides, and is followed by vasopressin and oxytocin, hormones that lead to long-lasting Attachment. These are 'Cuddle Chemicals,' released during sex; they give us the 'warm fuzzies,' making us want to stick together. They condition both partners so that they will maintain a pair bond for the successful rearing of offspring. Oxytocin, in particular, may actually subdue levels of unruly dopamine and norepinephrine, taking away that 'high' of initial infatuation, effectively 'squashing' Romantic Love.
There is something about the way our society is structured - our Western 'rules of propriety' - handed down through Christian tradition and surviving today in secular form - that creates and bolsters the conditions to capitalise on the natural high which accompanies the initial dopamine and norepinephrine surge. We commonly believe that 'dating' is a sensible practice put in place so that we may 'shop around' to find a good match, but perhaps it serves a further purpose. The rules of propriety that accompany dating (no sex before marriage, no sex on a first date and so on) are a restriction or barrier when you have found that one 'special someone,' they serve to frustrate the natural impulse and prolong the 'romantic high,' until marriage and consummation, for it is well known that when it comes to romance, you always want what you cannot have.
This delay may in fact bring about an even more powerful wave of Cuddle Chemicals than would otherwise be the case, leading to even longer-lasting attachment. Gay and lesbian communities in the Western world largely lack such societally-imposed restrictions, and indeed consummation of the natural procreative impulse, though directed at a partner of the same gender and thus confounding its biological imperative, follows swiftly in these communities. It is perhaps unsurprising that gay and lesbian relationships generally do not last nearly as long as 'straight' partnerships, when the conditions for lifelong partnership are largely a product of rules designed to frustrate the urges of 'normal' heterosexual mating pairs.
The problem with the 'Cuddle Chemical' stage is that it too begins to wane with time, as sex becomes less frequent. Men in particular are naturally programmed to seek out new sexual partners, and will inevitably begin to look around, being none too choosy. And women, far from being the passive objects they have been made out to be in much of Western tradition, are actually programmed to be continuously on the lookout to 'trade up' and secure a partner with better genetics, more resources and greater dominance (hence the appeal of shopping and wealthy husbands). And thus even the most the most stable, affectionate couple is vulnerable to infidelity or dissolution in time.
Novelty makes your brain and body pump out the exciting hormones, norepinephrine and dopamine, so if you find attraction waning, if your partnership has lost it's excitement and you want to persevere, then do new and varied things and fall in love all over again. You can fool your brain into seeing your partner as a new one. Studies show that couples who share more exciting experiences (such as entering competitions together and travelling together on vacations to new places) report more happiness and satisfaction. This may in fact explain the success of arranged marriages in other cultures, for while we in the West do not generally like the idea, the anxiety, suspense, and the thrill of Chinese or Indian wedding pageantry may in fact drive dopamine levels up so high that romantic love positively flourishes.
We have other tools to bring on the dopamine. Humour is one of the best. And as if you needed an excuse, having sex elevates testosterone levels in both males and females, which in turn revs up the dopamine, allowing partners to recapture the thrill of romantic love, at least temporarily. The simplest way, however, is enforced separation or a good old screaming row. Arguments trigger a rush of adrenaline, which kicks in during risky, new situations. Separation prolongs the production of dopamine, you want the person more as the barriers to togetherness are increased, which increases the frustration and makes the reward of being together so much richer. The problem with this is that both partners have to be in-sync for what's comfortable or challenging, and not many of us are. Our drives for novelty can be unifying or divisive once the exhilaration of courtship gives way to the routines of partnership.
Most enduring couples, it is found, are seeking similar levels of stimulation. People who seek high levels of stimulation (high sensation seekers) are more likely to engage in risky behaviour, explore unknown territory, experiment with drugs and alcohol and seek out a variety or larger number of sexual partners. High sensation seekers have low levels of dopamine (oddly enough) and serotonin, probably because of low levels of monoamine oxidase (MAO), which regulates dopamine and other neurotransmitters. Low serotonin levels go hand in hand with impulsive behaviour. Men tend to have lower MAO levels than women, which is not to say that they are deficient, but rather that this characteristic serves the man's quite different biological reproductive agenda (more on sex differences between men and women later).
A couple made up of two high sensation seekers is more likely to dissolve out of boredom, and this is almost certainly a factor in the generally rapid dissolution of male-male couples. A couple where one partner is a high sensation seeker and the other is a low sensation seeker will not easily understand each other (the majority of couples fall into this category, this being largely the state of the heterosexual population). The happiest couples are comprised of two people who aren't looking for high excitement, but lest you hastily conclude that lesbian relationships must be more content than any other couple form, it must be noted that even within each biological sex there may be vast disparities in individuals' levels of sensation seeking. It's not always obvious in the beginning stages of a relationship what level your potential partner is.
So there we have it: a brief overview of the chemistry of love and sex. Just as an aside, it should perhaps be noted that the hormones that incite us to couplehood and attachment actually decrease our individual testosterone production, making sex progressively less interesting over time. Couples who maintain interesting and satisfying sexual relationships generally have a lot of fights, go through periods of separation and reunion, have rich fantasy lives or make allowances for infidelity or the possibility (even if unacted upon) of sex with others. But lest you come away from this brief essay gloomy or disillusioned, take comfort in the fact that there are plenty of other areas in a relationship that may deepen and become richer with time, and that long-term Attachment is something wonderful in and of itself.
It's not all about sex.
DannyR
Friday, April 18, 2008
TAGGED!!
First, post the rules:
- Each blogger starts with ten random facts/habits about themselves.
- Bloggers that are tagged need to write on their own blog about their ten things and post these rules.
- At the end of your blog, you need to choose ten people to get tagged and list their names.
- Don’t forget to leave them a comment telling them they’re tagged, and to read your blog.
1) The first girl I ever fell head over heels for was the biggest bitch I have ever known. She was stunning, her hair was straight and snow-white blonde (not from a bottle, either), it fell to her waist (she never wore it up) and it bounced and swayed as she walked. She was a dancer, so she moved gracefully and was incredibly slim. She was taller than me, and she had freckles across her nose. Her name was Charity, which was kind of ironic, really, because she was unrelenting in her cruelty. Not that she ever swore at me or anything like that, no she was always smiling, and her voice was like honey. Her evil power was in her unerring ability to detect what people were most insecure about and draw attention to it in front of everyone, again and again, smiling sweetly as she did so. She humiliated me all through my teenage years, by saying things like "What on earth possessed you to wear that, sweetie?" and laughing gently at my stature and... other physical attributes... in front of her friends. And I was so smitten that I stumbled over myself trying not to look silly, and making more of a laughing stock of myself in the process.
2) The last time my dad came to visit me in Wellington (a few years back now) I heard him knock at the door and immediately hid under my bed where he wouldn't see me if he looked through the window. I stayed there for nearly three hours, listening to him banging on the door and swearing, hearing him walk around the house and look in through all the windows. Why didn't I just let him in? Because he annoys the hell out of me, showing up unannounced, talking about me to my flatmates as if I wasn't there, saying what he thinks is 'wrong with' me, insulting his hosts and saying every racist, homophobic, chauvanist thing that comes into his Christ-polluted head. Don't get me wrong, he's not saying these things like an ordinary Christian would... he's ANGRY when he says them, and when he gets angry he scares me half-to-death. Ordinary Christians would be horrified, I think, to hear him talking. And he's a minister. Go figure.
3) I cannot save money for the life of me. It's not even that I spend it on stuff, when I look at my bank statement it all seems to have gone on food, rent, power etc. But there's never any left over, and it doesn't matter how much I'm getting on a weekly basis. I think I eat too much.
4) I often fall asleep fantasizing about not waking up, wondering who would find me, what they would find, how they would go about packing up my stuff and distributing it among my family and friends or disposing of it. I wonder if anyone knows me well enough to work out what sort of commemmoration or service I'd want, and who would show up.
5) I had a secret world as a kid, more in my head than anywhere in my real life exactly. It was modelled on a quiet inner-city park I'd found one time when my mum had taken my little brother and me to visit my aunt Thelma and her husband Roy. It was over their back fence, and screened off on all sides by tall trees (I think they were poplars). In the middle of it was a fallen tree trunk, it was thick, hollow, and crawling with spiders and bugs, but I sat there on it enjoying the sunshine until I heard my mum calling for me an hour or so later. Aunt Thelma moved when Roy died, and I never found the place again, but it's still there in my head, I can picture it perfectly, and I escape there whenever I just want 'me' time.
6) I always wanted to be a writer... I still do. I have, under my bed, a good 300 pages of a couple of stories I've partly written. One of the main ways I waste time instead of doing my study is by typing what I've got so far. I think I'm very good at coming up with ideas, but quite poor at taking them to their conclusion, and so I guess I'll never write a book. I think it's because on some level I feel like it's not 'real work' and it would be selfish of me to pursue it.
7) I'm really ashamed of the fact that I did dance classes as a kid... ballet, tap, contemporary, jazz... and I got high marks in the exams. I absolutely hated it, but I loved being on stage, and I knew it made my mum proud so I kept up with it until I was fourteen and was just getting hassled too much by other kids my age. I got bullied a lot for it in primary school, so all through intermediate and high school I tried to hide the fact that I had done it, but it wasn't much good. I was getting called 'faggot' 'poof' and 'queer' before I even knew what the words meant. Retrospectively, I can't help but wonder if that has something to do with who I actually turned into.
8) I once pretended to have lost my wallet and driver's license at a party at someone's house, just so I could ask the guy who lived there to look for it and get back to me. He was one of the most attractive guys I've ever met, and of course I knew he was WAAAYY out of my league but it didn't stop me from obsessing over him for months.
9) I feel like I've lived enough, in that many different places, as that many different versions of me, that the one thing I want in all the world is rest, to not have to be anyone or anything, to not have to think or care or feel anything anymore. I'm feel exhausted, worn out, "thin, like butter spread over too much bread," to use Bilbo Baggins' expression.
10) If I could crawl inside a story, it would have to be 'The Last Continent' by Terry Pratchett, or in fact any of his Rincewind stories. I'd love to be just swept away in the insanity, it would be something new, vibrant and interesting. Rincewind's world conforms to no rules, nothing has to make sense, the only certainty being that you don't piss off The Luggage, or you get eaten. 'The Last Continent' is, I think, Pratchett's most ridiculous story, and it always makes me laugh my socks off.
- Each blogger starts with ten random facts/habits about themselves.
- Bloggers that are tagged need to write on their own blog about their ten things and post these rules.
- At the end of your blog, you need to choose ten people to get tagged and list their names.
- Don’t forget to leave them a comment telling them they’re tagged, and to read your blog.
1) The first girl I ever fell head over heels for was the biggest bitch I have ever known. She was stunning, her hair was straight and snow-white blonde (not from a bottle, either), it fell to her waist (she never wore it up) and it bounced and swayed as she walked. She was a dancer, so she moved gracefully and was incredibly slim. She was taller than me, and she had freckles across her nose. Her name was Charity, which was kind of ironic, really, because she was unrelenting in her cruelty. Not that she ever swore at me or anything like that, no she was always smiling, and her voice was like honey. Her evil power was in her unerring ability to detect what people were most insecure about and draw attention to it in front of everyone, again and again, smiling sweetly as she did so. She humiliated me all through my teenage years, by saying things like "What on earth possessed you to wear that, sweetie?" and laughing gently at my stature and... other physical attributes... in front of her friends. And I was so smitten that I stumbled over myself trying not to look silly, and making more of a laughing stock of myself in the process.
2) The last time my dad came to visit me in Wellington (a few years back now) I heard him knock at the door and immediately hid under my bed where he wouldn't see me if he looked through the window. I stayed there for nearly three hours, listening to him banging on the door and swearing, hearing him walk around the house and look in through all the windows. Why didn't I just let him in? Because he annoys the hell out of me, showing up unannounced, talking about me to my flatmates as if I wasn't there, saying what he thinks is 'wrong with' me, insulting his hosts and saying every racist, homophobic, chauvanist thing that comes into his Christ-polluted head. Don't get me wrong, he's not saying these things like an ordinary Christian would... he's ANGRY when he says them, and when he gets angry he scares me half-to-death. Ordinary Christians would be horrified, I think, to hear him talking. And he's a minister. Go figure.
3) I cannot save money for the life of me. It's not even that I spend it on stuff, when I look at my bank statement it all seems to have gone on food, rent, power etc. But there's never any left over, and it doesn't matter how much I'm getting on a weekly basis. I think I eat too much.
4) I often fall asleep fantasizing about not waking up, wondering who would find me, what they would find, how they would go about packing up my stuff and distributing it among my family and friends or disposing of it. I wonder if anyone knows me well enough to work out what sort of commemmoration or service I'd want, and who would show up.
5) I had a secret world as a kid, more in my head than anywhere in my real life exactly. It was modelled on a quiet inner-city park I'd found one time when my mum had taken my little brother and me to visit my aunt Thelma and her husband Roy. It was over their back fence, and screened off on all sides by tall trees (I think they were poplars). In the middle of it was a fallen tree trunk, it was thick, hollow, and crawling with spiders and bugs, but I sat there on it enjoying the sunshine until I heard my mum calling for me an hour or so later. Aunt Thelma moved when Roy died, and I never found the place again, but it's still there in my head, I can picture it perfectly, and I escape there whenever I just want 'me' time.
6) I always wanted to be a writer... I still do. I have, under my bed, a good 300 pages of a couple of stories I've partly written. One of the main ways I waste time instead of doing my study is by typing what I've got so far. I think I'm very good at coming up with ideas, but quite poor at taking them to their conclusion, and so I guess I'll never write a book. I think it's because on some level I feel like it's not 'real work' and it would be selfish of me to pursue it.
7) I'm really ashamed of the fact that I did dance classes as a kid... ballet, tap, contemporary, jazz... and I got high marks in the exams. I absolutely hated it, but I loved being on stage, and I knew it made my mum proud so I kept up with it until I was fourteen and was just getting hassled too much by other kids my age. I got bullied a lot for it in primary school, so all through intermediate and high school I tried to hide the fact that I had done it, but it wasn't much good. I was getting called 'faggot' 'poof' and 'queer' before I even knew what the words meant. Retrospectively, I can't help but wonder if that has something to do with who I actually turned into.
8) I once pretended to have lost my wallet and driver's license at a party at someone's house, just so I could ask the guy who lived there to look for it and get back to me. He was one of the most attractive guys I've ever met, and of course I knew he was WAAAYY out of my league but it didn't stop me from obsessing over him for months.
9) I feel like I've lived enough, in that many different places, as that many different versions of me, that the one thing I want in all the world is rest, to not have to be anyone or anything, to not have to think or care or feel anything anymore. I'm feel exhausted, worn out, "thin, like butter spread over too much bread," to use Bilbo Baggins' expression.
10) If I could crawl inside a story, it would have to be 'The Last Continent' by Terry Pratchett, or in fact any of his Rincewind stories. I'd love to be just swept away in the insanity, it would be something new, vibrant and interesting. Rincewind's world conforms to no rules, nothing has to make sense, the only certainty being that you don't piss off The Luggage, or you get eaten. 'The Last Continent' is, I think, Pratchett's most ridiculous story, and it always makes me laugh my socks off.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Matt
Sometimes when I see him
The word 'Love' springs to mind
There are few who speak to me
In tones so sweet and kind.
His wavy hair, his generous smile
His eyes as black as coals
That voice, so deep and rich and warm
It melts my very soul.
But then, I hardly know him so
Maybe 'Love' is not the word.
I'll ignore my heart's insistence -
Best develop a resistance,
Maybe get a little distance?
And reap the cost incurred.
The word 'Love' springs to mind
There are few who speak to me
In tones so sweet and kind.
His wavy hair, his generous smile
His eyes as black as coals
That voice, so deep and rich and warm
It melts my very soul.
But then, I hardly know him so
Maybe 'Love' is not the word.
I'll ignore my heart's insistence -
Best develop a resistance,
Maybe get a little distance?
And reap the cost incurred.
Gentle Punishment, Administered daily
I myself am quite surprised
How masochism took me,
I never would have dreamed that I'd
Debase myself so freely.
And yet it's not in bruises
That I count the wounds received,
My punishment and prize is in
The words you speak to me.
For when you look my way
And call me by my name,
I want to run, I want to die -
Beside you I'm ashamed.
You are so very beautiful,
So poised and clear and calm
You, the candle, I, the moth,
The flame will do me harm.
Yet I cannot break away, for
By you I'm hypnotised.
I find my sweet destruction
In the blackness of your eyes.
To you I'm but a passer-by,
Not worth a second glance -
To me you are salvation,
Just beyond my grasp.
When you speak to me,
The painful thought, unbidden
Springs to mind that I
Must slink away, alone, guilt-ridden.
For if you knew the way I melt
At each and every word
You'd shy from me,
Your smile, you see
Is more than I deserve.
Wanting that I cannot have-
The touch I am denied -
I dream of being whole again
Instead of one defiled.
My self respect in tatters,
Crying in the bathroom stall
I wish that I was someone else
-Anyone at all.
DannyR
How masochism took me,
I never would have dreamed that I'd
Debase myself so freely.
And yet it's not in bruises
That I count the wounds received,
My punishment and prize is in
The words you speak to me.
For when you look my way
And call me by my name,
I want to run, I want to die -
Beside you I'm ashamed.
You are so very beautiful,
So poised and clear and calm
You, the candle, I, the moth,
The flame will do me harm.
Yet I cannot break away, for
By you I'm hypnotised.
I find my sweet destruction
In the blackness of your eyes.
To you I'm but a passer-by,
Not worth a second glance -
To me you are salvation,
Just beyond my grasp.
When you speak to me,
The painful thought, unbidden
Springs to mind that I
Must slink away, alone, guilt-ridden.
For if you knew the way I melt
At each and every word
You'd shy from me,
Your smile, you see
Is more than I deserve.
Wanting that I cannot have-
The touch I am denied -
I dream of being whole again
Instead of one defiled.
My self respect in tatters,
Crying in the bathroom stall
I wish that I was someone else
-Anyone at all.
DannyR
Friday, April 11, 2008
On Limerance
Limerance, or 'fallen-in-love-ness', (in German, Verliebtheit), is directed at a Limerant Object, it is the experience of having a crush on or being infatuated with someone for days or even years, and is characterised by
(i) intrusive thinking about the Limerant Object,
(ii) a pronounced sensitivity to external events that reflect the disposition of the Limerant Object toward the individual,
(iii) a shyness around the Limerant Object and intense fear of rejection,
(iv) the ability to focus only on the Object's positive traits and/or turn their negatives into positives,
(v) an acute longing for reciprocation, without necessarily thinking of the Object's own welfare, and fleeting relief through fantasy of fulfillment, and
(vi) the ability to devise reasonable explanations for why the Object is 'hiding' their reciprocative feelings.
It is experienced as intense joy or extreme despair, putting other concerns into the background, it tends to increase as barriers to togetherness increase, it demands reciprocity but oddly enough often evaporates after reciprocity is established. Not for nothing was this rather bizarre set of feelings called 'Love Sickness', and indeed, throughout most of Western history, that's exactly how it was perceived. We tend to think of Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet as the ultimate story of love and devotion in this day and age, something perhaps to aspire to, and yet to the Elizabethans for whom it was written it was a cautionary tale, a tragedy, warning of the dire consequences, the sheer madness, of pursuing love.
According to Dorothy Tennov, there are three basic types of relationships:
Affectional: Neither partner is limerant, they do not report intrusive, continuous thinking about the spouse or feel intense need for exclusivity, rather, they emphasize compatibility of interest, mutual preferences in leisure activities, ability to work together and a degree of relative contentment. They are often characterised as the "Old Marrieds".
Limerant-nonlimerant: The majority of couples, characterised by unequal reciprocation, these relationships tend to last a fair while then fall apart.
Limerant-limerant: Inherently unstable, lasting only a short while.
Before the 1950s, having sex with the Limerant Object was pretty much a guarantee of reciprocity, as almost nobody was doing that before marriage and one only entered marriage when the sensible aspects of a relationship had all been worked out. These days, however, since the Sexual Revolution and the decline of marriage in the West, having sex with the Object of one's affections is no end to the uncertainty, and the majority of couples live a state of neurotic fear of abandonment. With this goes a tendency to seek to control one's partner, to dictate with whom they can spend time, in which activities they can engage and for how long. 'Prove to me that you love me' has become the mantra of the modern relationship, where once it was taken as self-evident, the ring being on the finger.
How the world turns.
- DannyR
(i) intrusive thinking about the Limerant Object,
(ii) a pronounced sensitivity to external events that reflect the disposition of the Limerant Object toward the individual,
(iii) a shyness around the Limerant Object and intense fear of rejection,
(iv) the ability to focus only on the Object's positive traits and/or turn their negatives into positives,
(v) an acute longing for reciprocation, without necessarily thinking of the Object's own welfare, and fleeting relief through fantasy of fulfillment, and
(vi) the ability to devise reasonable explanations for why the Object is 'hiding' their reciprocative feelings.
It is experienced as intense joy or extreme despair, putting other concerns into the background, it tends to increase as barriers to togetherness increase, it demands reciprocity but oddly enough often evaporates after reciprocity is established. Not for nothing was this rather bizarre set of feelings called 'Love Sickness', and indeed, throughout most of Western history, that's exactly how it was perceived. We tend to think of Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet as the ultimate story of love and devotion in this day and age, something perhaps to aspire to, and yet to the Elizabethans for whom it was written it was a cautionary tale, a tragedy, warning of the dire consequences, the sheer madness, of pursuing love.
According to Dorothy Tennov, there are three basic types of relationships:
Affectional: Neither partner is limerant, they do not report intrusive, continuous thinking about the spouse or feel intense need for exclusivity, rather, they emphasize compatibility of interest, mutual preferences in leisure activities, ability to work together and a degree of relative contentment. They are often characterised as the "Old Marrieds".
Limerant-nonlimerant: The majority of couples, characterised by unequal reciprocation, these relationships tend to last a fair while then fall apart.
Limerant-limerant: Inherently unstable, lasting only a short while.
Before the 1950s, having sex with the Limerant Object was pretty much a guarantee of reciprocity, as almost nobody was doing that before marriage and one only entered marriage when the sensible aspects of a relationship had all been worked out. These days, however, since the Sexual Revolution and the decline of marriage in the West, having sex with the Object of one's affections is no end to the uncertainty, and the majority of couples live a state of neurotic fear of abandonment. With this goes a tendency to seek to control one's partner, to dictate with whom they can spend time, in which activities they can engage and for how long. 'Prove to me that you love me' has become the mantra of the modern relationship, where once it was taken as self-evident, the ring being on the finger.
How the world turns.
- DannyR
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Autumn Vigil
Lustrous and cold
The clouds of the Dawn
Let fall shards of silver
This bitter March morn
And I, thinking of you,
Must shudder and sigh -
In the gloom of my room
Life passes me by.
- DannyR
The clouds of the Dawn
Let fall shards of silver
This bitter March morn
And I, thinking of you,
Must shudder and sigh -
In the gloom of my room
Life passes me by.
- DannyR
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Funny
It's funny
Once the chance is gone, and
There's nothing you can do,
When you've gone beyond redemption
And you're lost out in the blue,
You move beyond depression
And a numbness settles in,
And you wonder how you ever felt
Anything for him.
You can't quite fathom how
You came to give your heart away,
You feel a loss, you count the cost in
An academic way.
Somehow you just can't seem to care
If you should live or die,
All future plans just disappear
You banish all desire.
You're living by default,
Merely an automaton
Feeling somewhat disconnected,
All your former spark is gone.
It's funny,
When you lose all hope
Of ever being loved,
The nothingness just takes the pain
Leaving you unplugged.
-D Rudd
Once the chance is gone, and
There's nothing you can do,
When you've gone beyond redemption
And you're lost out in the blue,
You move beyond depression
And a numbness settles in,
And you wonder how you ever felt
Anything for him.
You can't quite fathom how
You came to give your heart away,
You feel a loss, you count the cost in
An academic way.
Somehow you just can't seem to care
If you should live or die,
All future plans just disappear
You banish all desire.
You're living by default,
Merely an automaton
Feeling somewhat disconnected,
All your former spark is gone.
It's funny,
When you lose all hope
Of ever being loved,
The nothingness just takes the pain
Leaving you unplugged.
-D Rudd
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Breaking Up Is Hard To Do....
For Good
by Stephen Schwartz,
From the musical Wicked.
I've heard it said
That people come into our lives
For a reason,
Bringing something we must learn.
And we are led
To those
Who help us most to grow,
If we let them,
And we help them in return.
Well I don't know if I believe that's true -
But I know I'm who I am today
Because I knew you.
Like a comet pulled from orbit
As it passes a sun,
Like a stream that meets a boulder
Halfway through the wood -
Who can say if I've been changed for the better? but
Because I knew you,
I have been changed for good.
It well may be
That we will never meet again
In this lifetime,
So let me say before we part
So much of me
Is made of what I learned from you -
You'll be with me
Like a handprint on my heart.
And now whatever way our stories end,
I know you have rewritten mine by being my friend.
Like a ship blown from it's moorings
By a wind off the sea,
Like a seed dropped by a skybird
In a distant wood -
Who can say if I've been changed for the better? but
Because I knew you,
I have been changed for good.
And just to clear the air I ask forgiveness
For the things I've done you blame me for.
But then I guess we know there's blame to share -
And none of it seems to matter anymore.
Like a comet pulled from orbit
As it passes the sun,
Like a stream that meets a boulder
Halfway through the wood -
Who can say if I've been changed for the better?
I do believe I have been changed for the better, and
Because I knew you,
Because I knew you,
Because I knew you
I have been changed...
For good.
by Stephen Schwartz,
From the musical Wicked.
I've heard it said
That people come into our lives
For a reason,
Bringing something we must learn.
And we are led
To those
Who help us most to grow,
If we let them,
And we help them in return.
Well I don't know if I believe that's true -
But I know I'm who I am today
Because I knew you.
Like a comet pulled from orbit
As it passes a sun,
Like a stream that meets a boulder
Halfway through the wood -
Who can say if I've been changed for the better? but
Because I knew you,
I have been changed for good.
It well may be
That we will never meet again
In this lifetime,
So let me say before we part
So much of me
Is made of what I learned from you -
You'll be with me
Like a handprint on my heart.
And now whatever way our stories end,
I know you have rewritten mine by being my friend.
Like a ship blown from it's moorings
By a wind off the sea,
Like a seed dropped by a skybird
In a distant wood -
Who can say if I've been changed for the better? but
Because I knew you,
I have been changed for good.
And just to clear the air I ask forgiveness
For the things I've done you blame me for.
But then I guess we know there's blame to share -
And none of it seems to matter anymore.
Like a comet pulled from orbit
As it passes the sun,
Like a stream that meets a boulder
Halfway through the wood -
Who can say if I've been changed for the better?
I do believe I have been changed for the better, and
Because I knew you,
Because I knew you,
Because I knew you
I have been changed...
For good.
Monday, November 5, 2007
And Now, For Something Completely Different...
Just a quick update.
Remember G from the other night? Him and me are seeing each other, we really hit it off and have been spending a lot of time together this last two weeks. S knows all about it and he's happy, he likes G (they used to go out, AGES ago) and so we're going on our first date tonight.... can't wait! So yeah, we're now officially a 'threeple'. Weird, huh? I'm SO happy, I've just been grinning like an idiot for days.
I guess I'm so happy cos it's the first time I've really laid myself completely open and it went well, I'm used to being honest and having it thrown back in my face.
Remember G from the other night? Him and me are seeing each other, we really hit it off and have been spending a lot of time together this last two weeks. S knows all about it and he's happy, he likes G (they used to go out, AGES ago) and so we're going on our first date tonight.... can't wait! So yeah, we're now officially a 'threeple'. Weird, huh? I'm SO happy, I've just been grinning like an idiot for days.
I guess I'm so happy cos it's the first time I've really laid myself completely open and it went well, I'm used to being honest and having it thrown back in my face.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
A Start...
Well, I did it.
;D
Last night after dinner at S’s house I initiated a conversation about polyamory. It scared me half to death to do it, but I did, having made up my mind on the way over that I had to for my own sanity.
I can’t even remember exactly how the conversation went, I was that scared, and then after we’d had it I had to ask myself over and over if it had really happened.
He was confused when I first said the word, and he looked just as scared as I felt. I told him I had been trying to work out for a long time whether he would still accept me, given the films and TV shows he likes, the way he’s always checking other people out and so on. I told him that I’m happy being with him, I like our relationship and I look forward to our future together, and that my fears of rejection over this issue come mostly from experience with previous partners and from rejection at school and from my family for other things.
He told me this was completely out of the blue, that he'd never guessed that I was trying to work out his feelings about open relationships and seeing other people and so on. He thinks maybe I picked up on the polyamory aspects of his favourite movies and TV shows because it was something that is actually in my life, where it hasn’t been in his so he didn’t really notice those themes. He also answered a question I’ve had for a long time but have been too scared to ask, that his past relationships have always been strictly monogamous and he’s never even thought of having it any other way.
He told me that having this conversation was like it all clicking into place for him, it answered a lot of his questions about me holding back in communication and also my past objections to him checking other guys out (I was being the dutiful monogamous boyfriend and he wasn’t “playing by the rules”).
We talked a bit about my past non-monogamous relationships, and that I am involved in the poly community. We didn't talk about the sex side of things, and I still think we need to, but it's a start anyway. He said he thinks at this point he would be hurt if I did start seeing someone else, and seemed disbelieving that I could see him with someone else and not be angry (even after I'd explained things like compersion), but he didn’t scream and shout and made a point of saying that he’s glad I brought this up and that he loves me.
He’s said he’ll read up about it a bit and ask questions as he has them, but said that I have to work on my communication with him, because most of the barriers are put up by me. And I totally accept that – I know a polyamorous relationship needs a strong foundation of good communication skills.
Funny thing is, we went to bed after and started fooling around, and he was pretty excited... I wonder if it turns him on?? So yeah, I’ve done it, after a whole year and a half of wondering how to bring it up and being sure I wasn’t going to be loved and accepted as I am, I did it and he still loves me. Joy!!
;D
Last night after dinner at S’s house I initiated a conversation about polyamory. It scared me half to death to do it, but I did, having made up my mind on the way over that I had to for my own sanity.
I can’t even remember exactly how the conversation went, I was that scared, and then after we’d had it I had to ask myself over and over if it had really happened.
He was confused when I first said the word, and he looked just as scared as I felt. I told him I had been trying to work out for a long time whether he would still accept me, given the films and TV shows he likes, the way he’s always checking other people out and so on. I told him that I’m happy being with him, I like our relationship and I look forward to our future together, and that my fears of rejection over this issue come mostly from experience with previous partners and from rejection at school and from my family for other things.
He told me this was completely out of the blue, that he'd never guessed that I was trying to work out his feelings about open relationships and seeing other people and so on. He thinks maybe I picked up on the polyamory aspects of his favourite movies and TV shows because it was something that is actually in my life, where it hasn’t been in his so he didn’t really notice those themes. He also answered a question I’ve had for a long time but have been too scared to ask, that his past relationships have always been strictly monogamous and he’s never even thought of having it any other way.
He told me that having this conversation was like it all clicking into place for him, it answered a lot of his questions about me holding back in communication and also my past objections to him checking other guys out (I was being the dutiful monogamous boyfriend and he wasn’t “playing by the rules”).
We talked a bit about my past non-monogamous relationships, and that I am involved in the poly community. We didn't talk about the sex side of things, and I still think we need to, but it's a start anyway. He said he thinks at this point he would be hurt if I did start seeing someone else, and seemed disbelieving that I could see him with someone else and not be angry (even after I'd explained things like compersion), but he didn’t scream and shout and made a point of saying that he’s glad I brought this up and that he loves me.
He’s said he’ll read up about it a bit and ask questions as he has them, but said that I have to work on my communication with him, because most of the barriers are put up by me. And I totally accept that – I know a polyamorous relationship needs a strong foundation of good communication skills.
Funny thing is, we went to bed after and started fooling around, and he was pretty excited... I wonder if it turns him on?? So yeah, I’ve done it, after a whole year and a half of wondering how to bring it up and being sure I wasn’t going to be loved and accepted as I am, I did it and he still loves me. Joy!!
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Quadruple Whammy -- SHAG Week, Deviant, CHAFF 2007
Queer enough?
What’s queer? Who’s queer?
These days, we usually use the word to talk about the ‘non-straight’ people in society, the obvious non-conformists like transsexuals, lesbians, gay men and bisexuals among us. Most of us understand ‘queer’ to mean same-sex orientation to some degree or the physical transition from one sex to the other, and for most intents and purposes, it suits just fine.
But who are we leaving out?
There are lots of other people out there who don’t call themselves straight but aren’t covered by our four ‘normal’ queer categories. Can the term ‘queer’ encompass all these many varied identities and behaviours?
First off the mark, how about people who are intersex, that is born neither male nor female, or some combination of both? Well of course, we queer people say earnestly, yes, obviously they belong under this umbrella with us. But we don’t think about them much, do we? We don’t make really make room in our communities for them, because we’re actually highly invested in people having ‘the right bits’. Gay girls emphatically want girl’s bits to play with, and gay guys are NOT welcoming of anyone who looks male overall but has some other sort of plumbing. Gay guys are positively elitist when it comes to the size and shape of certain organs. We're more about genitals than perhaps even straight people are. If the bits we expect to find aren't there, or are somewhat different, we react with something like disgust.
What about people who consider themselves transgender, but have no intention of making any sort of physical transition? The woman who secretly considers herself innately male, for instance, but lives an otherwise regular life? Or how about the ultra feminine woman, complete with all the plumbing, who is genetically male?
Shall we consider the transvestite – a straight man or woman who enjoys taking on the opposite gender only some of the time, with no interest in actually making a permanent transition? We in the queer community jump to the assumption that these people are bisexual or gay, given our experience with drag queens and kings, but surprisingly enough the vast majority of transvestites are actually heterosexual men.
What of the conventional male-female couple who enjoy swapping sexual roles and behaviours in the sack, celebrating their dual genderedness? A man may have no attraction to other men, and yet enjoy pretending to be a woman in the sack, and this role-playing is not that uncommon in women either. Similarly, there are men out there who would be considered ‘straight’ by all standards, except for their enjoyment of their female partner penetrating them with a sex toy or digit, and there’s a lot of resistance and discrimination toward these men among the majority male population. Surely, that qualifies them for queer status?
What about the man or woman who knows himself or herself to have the capacity to relate sexually to both men and women, who lives a happy, conventional life with the wife or husband and kids, never actively pursuing sexual relationships with anyone of the same-sex? In essence, a non-practicing bisexual? Queer enough? Do they need to be identified as queer? Maybe not, if queerness is qualified by participation in a lifestyle or community involving other queer people. But if it is, what of the celibate gay man or woman, someone who does not pursue sexual or social relationships with anyone, yet happily identifies as homosexual?
Recently in New Zealand, the tiny asexual community is striving to make itself heard. These are people who may have romantic interests and sometimes even sexual relationships with spouses, yet do not experience any sort of sexual attraction. That’s a difficult idea for a lot of us to get our heads around, but they’re here, and they’ll be queer, if we let them. Why not?
What are we to make of the straight man that chooses to have sex with men for convenience or out of a rejection of women? That’s not acceptable practice in the wider community – so is it queer? Or how about heterosexual platonic lovers, those happy few who choose never to have sex with their loved one - not just until they are married, but NEVER? They won’t be harassed by the heterosexual population at large, very likely, but they’ll certainly be considered odd or somehow faulty. Should we welcome such couples under our big queer umbrella?
And then there’s heterosexual polygamists and the polyamorous… those people who either have multiple spouses or multiple romantic relationships (FYI they’re not the same thing). Does a woman with two husbands living together in one household, sharing her romantically, fiscally and physically, count as queer? What about a man with a wife and a girlfriend or two who all know about each other and are happy with the arrangement? That’s definitely not acceptable in our day and age, though there are the beginnings of the tiniest whispers of social change around these issues.
The point I’m trying to make is that there is a vast array of diverse sexual behaviour out there that is in conflict with traditional conceptions of what it is to be ‘straight,’ ‘normal’ and ‘acceptable.’ By altering our notions of what it is to be queer, and inviting all those sex, love and gender nonconformists to share with us a position of confident opposition to the mandated model of heterosexuality in our culture, we can free our society of the expectation that weighs so heavily on so many of us. That’s the ‘queer’ I want to be a part of: a movement that stands in opposition to repression and conformity, that seeks to liberate and enable all to express their love, sexuality and many gendered identities.
Danny Rudd
Wank, wank, wank…
Is it mere coincidence that the idea of ‘the homosexual’ as an entirely separate type of human being emerged in the same century and culture as did the invention of the photographic image and the moving picture, or did the birth of these technologies in fact help create ‘the homosexual’ as a category of human, by making graphic imagery of same-sex sexual behaviours more accessible, thereby allowing greater numbers of men to cement their sexuality?
The historically recent emergence of visual technologies such as photography, print and film has allowed for the mass production of graphic depictions of human sexual behaviour. Inevitably, amongst the masses of ‘straight’ pornography made available by these technologies, some of these images were of same-sex behaviours. Now, I’m not suggesting for a moment that exposure to homosexual imagery actually causes homosexual urges, as it’s obvious that a person can have same sex attractions without having ever laid eyes on gay porn. There must have been a ready market for homosexual porn for it to have got off the ground at all. And clearly, homosexual sex acts occur in societies where the graphic image is absent. My argument, rather, is that it is the repeated, deliberate exposure to the static or moving depiction of exclusively male-male sex, in connection with masturbation, that has allowed a greater number of men than ever before to cement a preference for the type of sexual conduct depicted by homosexual pornography.
Let me explain how this happens in a little more detail. Through looking at images that depict certain behaviours (say, rimming or fellatio) and masturbating in contemplation of those images, a man creates a mental and perhaps even neural association between the behaviours he observes and sexual pleasure. He is then more likely to repeat the act of masturbation in response to the stimulus, in an attempt to recreate the initial pleasurable experience, and the more often he does this, the stronger the association becomes, until he finds himself unable to ‘get off’ in response to any other stimulus. I would suggest that this masturbatory process might in fact be responsible for more than the small-scale adoption of specific sex acts, that it is in fact largely responsible for creating an exclusive preference for one gender over the other. And maybe this has made exclusive homosexuality more prevalent in our Western societies than it might otherwise be. Commercial demand prompts greater supply and all the networking that goes with it, and before long there are enough people to form a rudimentary community.
In other words, gayness as an identity is largely the product of the male obsession with whacking off while looking at dirty pictures. I could be wrong, but I think there’s pretty good evidence for this assertion. For instance, in those cultures without ready access to film and print, where homosexual behaviour among men has been observed or reported, there is arguably more fluidity in male sexuality: the men almost without fail go on to develop sexual relationships with women after an ‘apprenticeship’ with older men, or they maintain sexual relationships with both men and women throughout their adult lives. In such cultures, actual communities founded on same-sex sexual behaviour are unheard of. Even historically, in classical societies such as those of the Greeks and Romans, it was considered the norm for men who engaged in homosexual sex acts to marry heterosexually and engage in heterosexual coupling as well. It is also telling that gay women, who are on the whole less likely to expose themselves to pornography, commonly report more fluidity in their sexual identity and expression than do gay men.
It would be fascinating to conduct sociological and psychological studies into this much neglected area of human behaviour… of course, no such studies have been proposed by mostly male queer theorists, who have much invested politically in the notion of homosexuality as something innate and immutable. Yes, the conception of inborn homosexuality has paved the way for rights and recognition, but increasingly as gay and bisexual women’s voices are heard, the biological determinist position looks less tenable.
Danny Rudd
A Challenge…
A lot of men these days proudly declare themselves feminists, or talk about being in touch with their feminine side… but what does that actually mean? Isn’t that an acknowledgement that each of us has a spark of female inside us? Doesn’t that mean we’re all just the tiniest bit transgendered? Funny, then, that we sensitive new age guys don’t give ourselves girl’s names.
Say what?
That’s a bit extreme, I hear you say, surely? The very idea makes even the most sensitive, most new age-y guys squirm. But if we are really, truly pro-female and comfortable with our inner femininity, however slight, we shouldn’t have any trouble with it. If we do, we’re hypocrites.
I gave myself a girl’s name. At first I kept it to myself, and that was weird enough. I found it hard just thinking of a girl’s name I could comfortably call myself… until I realised I wouldn’t feel comfortable with any girl’s name, because while I’m pretty darn feminist, I have some deep-seated discomfort with the idea of people calling me a girl in a derogatory way. Society tells us subtly that it’s not acceptable, and we listen. But after trying fairly androgynous-sounding names like Danni [sic] and Tara, I pushed myself and picked something more feminine, precisely because it made me uncomfortable. Then when I let my friends know I wanted to try it on for a day, they made it pretty obvious they thought I was being stupid, I got the message loud and clear. As a guy, I’m not allowed to be a Sarah.
But for a girl to have a guy’s name, like Terri or Jo, or even a name derived from a male name, like Geraldine or Paula, is quite normal… do you see the double standard here? It’s ok for a girl to ‘aspire’ to manliness, not just in name but in things like confidence and comfort of clothing and so on, but for a guy to look like a girl… that’s just not on. That’s because as a society, we still stupidly think there’s something inferior about femaleness. And that’s what’s behind effeminate males and drag queens being harassed and male-to-female transgender people being called immoral or perverted.
THAT’S not on.
So come on guys, put yourselves to the test… give yourself a girl’s name, even for just a day, and see if it makes you think or feel any differently. What are you afraid of?
Danny Rudd
Poison Seed
I don’t know whether I should be relieved or horrified that a lot of young bisexual and gay men these days don’t know what the term ‘bug chasing’ means.
According to that veritable fount of knowledge, Wikipedia: bugchasing (or bug chasing) is a slang term for a subculture of gay men who desire, and actively pursue HIV infection. Bugchasers ‘chase the bug’ by seeking sexual partners who are HIV positive for the purpose of having unprotected sex and sero-converting; ‘giftgivers’ are HIV+ men who attempt to infect bugchasers with HIV.
That’s insane, right? Why would anyone actually want to contract HIV?
There’s a lot of debate about how prevalent this behaviour actually is. A widely discredited article in Rolling Stone a couple of years back suggested that up to 25% of people who contract HIV do so on purpose, while some researchers consider it little more than an internet fantasy. But it does exist.
People who consider themselves bugchasers want to take control of their sex lives and destiny… basically, they see HIV infection as inevitable and just want to get it out of the way. A lot of them think using condoms is unnatural and gets in the way of their sexual pleasure by reducing the sensitivity of their penis. The problem is that these guys don’t know what they’re getting themselves into. Medications are available now which, while not curing the disease, can prolong an infected person’s life and to some extent hide the more unpleasant aspects. And in the States, doctors prescribe steroids to HIV+ men to prevent muscle wasting, and as a result a lot of positive men are able to achieve the trim, muscular looks the rest of us aspire to and desire.
Coupled with this, there is an alarming recent trend in gay pornography to glamorise ‘bare-backing’ or unprotected anal sex. There are now HIV+ gay porn stars saying that their positive status allows them to indulge in unprotected orgiastic behaviour without fear of the consequences, because they’ve already got the worst thing they can get, and thanks to the medications, it’s not doing them any noticeable harm. One such porn star is Treasure Island Media’s Dawson, the hulkingly well-built poster boy for ‘carefree’ HIV+ sexuality. So the message is clear: you can look hotter and get more sex if you've got the bug.
Sounds great, right? Trouble is, while outwardly you might look attractive and able to have as much sex as you want with whomever, there’s a whole lot else going on that the glamour account of HIV isn’t letting you in on. All those medications cause really uncomfortable and sometimes crippling side effects, and they’re not foolproof. You could get another strain of HIV from unsafe sex that your current medication can’t protect you from, get sick quickly and die unpleasantly. Or if you live in a country where the drugs aren’t covered by insurance or welfare and you can’t afford them, you’re in for an excruciating, drawn out death, being ugly to boot, as opportunistic skin infections tarnish your good looks.
The bugchasers could know all this, but they don’t. Why? Well, partly they’re just sick of hearing all the warnings, it’s like the news: you get desensitised after a while. But more so, the gay community is deeply age-segregated: we younger guys just don’t get to know the older guys because we don’t want them hitting on us. We’re only interested in the hot boys, who mostly happen to be young, like ourselves. This is all perfectly natural, really, we’re a pretty conceited lot, but this segregation means that we don’t hear the stories the older guys could tell. And maybe we don’t want to: we’re young, this is supposed to be the time of our lives, we don’t want to think about death. But the truth is, the older guys saw their friends, lovers and sex partners dying all around them, they haven’t forgotten, and now we’re at risk and we’re not listening to the stories that might help us to take more responsibility for ourselves and each other.
The point of all this is that it really is desperately important for all you guys who are having receptive anal sex, whether straight, bi or gay, to protect yourselves by insisting your sex partner(s) use condoms. Don’t be fooled into thinking it doesn’t matter – because getting HIV infection will seriously fuck up your life. I have friends who are positive, and all the discrimination, shame, cramps, diarrhoea, vomiting, lesions and blindness aren’t worth it. Believe me.
Danny Rudd
What’s queer? Who’s queer?
These days, we usually use the word to talk about the ‘non-straight’ people in society, the obvious non-conformists like transsexuals, lesbians, gay men and bisexuals among us. Most of us understand ‘queer’ to mean same-sex orientation to some degree or the physical transition from one sex to the other, and for most intents and purposes, it suits just fine.
But who are we leaving out?
There are lots of other people out there who don’t call themselves straight but aren’t covered by our four ‘normal’ queer categories. Can the term ‘queer’ encompass all these many varied identities and behaviours?
First off the mark, how about people who are intersex, that is born neither male nor female, or some combination of both? Well of course, we queer people say earnestly, yes, obviously they belong under this umbrella with us. But we don’t think about them much, do we? We don’t make really make room in our communities for them, because we’re actually highly invested in people having ‘the right bits’. Gay girls emphatically want girl’s bits to play with, and gay guys are NOT welcoming of anyone who looks male overall but has some other sort of plumbing. Gay guys are positively elitist when it comes to the size and shape of certain organs. We're more about genitals than perhaps even straight people are. If the bits we expect to find aren't there, or are somewhat different, we react with something like disgust.
What about people who consider themselves transgender, but have no intention of making any sort of physical transition? The woman who secretly considers herself innately male, for instance, but lives an otherwise regular life? Or how about the ultra feminine woman, complete with all the plumbing, who is genetically male?
Shall we consider the transvestite – a straight man or woman who enjoys taking on the opposite gender only some of the time, with no interest in actually making a permanent transition? We in the queer community jump to the assumption that these people are bisexual or gay, given our experience with drag queens and kings, but surprisingly enough the vast majority of transvestites are actually heterosexual men.
What of the conventional male-female couple who enjoy swapping sexual roles and behaviours in the sack, celebrating their dual genderedness? A man may have no attraction to other men, and yet enjoy pretending to be a woman in the sack, and this role-playing is not that uncommon in women either. Similarly, there are men out there who would be considered ‘straight’ by all standards, except for their enjoyment of their female partner penetrating them with a sex toy or digit, and there’s a lot of resistance and discrimination toward these men among the majority male population. Surely, that qualifies them for queer status?
What about the man or woman who knows himself or herself to have the capacity to relate sexually to both men and women, who lives a happy, conventional life with the wife or husband and kids, never actively pursuing sexual relationships with anyone of the same-sex? In essence, a non-practicing bisexual? Queer enough? Do they need to be identified as queer? Maybe not, if queerness is qualified by participation in a lifestyle or community involving other queer people. But if it is, what of the celibate gay man or woman, someone who does not pursue sexual or social relationships with anyone, yet happily identifies as homosexual?
Recently in New Zealand, the tiny asexual community is striving to make itself heard. These are people who may have romantic interests and sometimes even sexual relationships with spouses, yet do not experience any sort of sexual attraction. That’s a difficult idea for a lot of us to get our heads around, but they’re here, and they’ll be queer, if we let them. Why not?
What are we to make of the straight man that chooses to have sex with men for convenience or out of a rejection of women? That’s not acceptable practice in the wider community – so is it queer? Or how about heterosexual platonic lovers, those happy few who choose never to have sex with their loved one - not just until they are married, but NEVER? They won’t be harassed by the heterosexual population at large, very likely, but they’ll certainly be considered odd or somehow faulty. Should we welcome such couples under our big queer umbrella?
And then there’s heterosexual polygamists and the polyamorous… those people who either have multiple spouses or multiple romantic relationships (FYI they’re not the same thing). Does a woman with two husbands living together in one household, sharing her romantically, fiscally and physically, count as queer? What about a man with a wife and a girlfriend or two who all know about each other and are happy with the arrangement? That’s definitely not acceptable in our day and age, though there are the beginnings of the tiniest whispers of social change around these issues.
The point I’m trying to make is that there is a vast array of diverse sexual behaviour out there that is in conflict with traditional conceptions of what it is to be ‘straight,’ ‘normal’ and ‘acceptable.’ By altering our notions of what it is to be queer, and inviting all those sex, love and gender nonconformists to share with us a position of confident opposition to the mandated model of heterosexuality in our culture, we can free our society of the expectation that weighs so heavily on so many of us. That’s the ‘queer’ I want to be a part of: a movement that stands in opposition to repression and conformity, that seeks to liberate and enable all to express their love, sexuality and many gendered identities.
Danny Rudd
Wank, wank, wank…
Is it mere coincidence that the idea of ‘the homosexual’ as an entirely separate type of human being emerged in the same century and culture as did the invention of the photographic image and the moving picture, or did the birth of these technologies in fact help create ‘the homosexual’ as a category of human, by making graphic imagery of same-sex sexual behaviours more accessible, thereby allowing greater numbers of men to cement their sexuality?
The historically recent emergence of visual technologies such as photography, print and film has allowed for the mass production of graphic depictions of human sexual behaviour. Inevitably, amongst the masses of ‘straight’ pornography made available by these technologies, some of these images were of same-sex behaviours. Now, I’m not suggesting for a moment that exposure to homosexual imagery actually causes homosexual urges, as it’s obvious that a person can have same sex attractions without having ever laid eyes on gay porn. There must have been a ready market for homosexual porn for it to have got off the ground at all. And clearly, homosexual sex acts occur in societies where the graphic image is absent. My argument, rather, is that it is the repeated, deliberate exposure to the static or moving depiction of exclusively male-male sex, in connection with masturbation, that has allowed a greater number of men than ever before to cement a preference for the type of sexual conduct depicted by homosexual pornography.
Let me explain how this happens in a little more detail. Through looking at images that depict certain behaviours (say, rimming or fellatio) and masturbating in contemplation of those images, a man creates a mental and perhaps even neural association between the behaviours he observes and sexual pleasure. He is then more likely to repeat the act of masturbation in response to the stimulus, in an attempt to recreate the initial pleasurable experience, and the more often he does this, the stronger the association becomes, until he finds himself unable to ‘get off’ in response to any other stimulus. I would suggest that this masturbatory process might in fact be responsible for more than the small-scale adoption of specific sex acts, that it is in fact largely responsible for creating an exclusive preference for one gender over the other. And maybe this has made exclusive homosexuality more prevalent in our Western societies than it might otherwise be. Commercial demand prompts greater supply and all the networking that goes with it, and before long there are enough people to form a rudimentary community.
In other words, gayness as an identity is largely the product of the male obsession with whacking off while looking at dirty pictures. I could be wrong, but I think there’s pretty good evidence for this assertion. For instance, in those cultures without ready access to film and print, where homosexual behaviour among men has been observed or reported, there is arguably more fluidity in male sexuality: the men almost without fail go on to develop sexual relationships with women after an ‘apprenticeship’ with older men, or they maintain sexual relationships with both men and women throughout their adult lives. In such cultures, actual communities founded on same-sex sexual behaviour are unheard of. Even historically, in classical societies such as those of the Greeks and Romans, it was considered the norm for men who engaged in homosexual sex acts to marry heterosexually and engage in heterosexual coupling as well. It is also telling that gay women, who are on the whole less likely to expose themselves to pornography, commonly report more fluidity in their sexual identity and expression than do gay men.
It would be fascinating to conduct sociological and psychological studies into this much neglected area of human behaviour… of course, no such studies have been proposed by mostly male queer theorists, who have much invested politically in the notion of homosexuality as something innate and immutable. Yes, the conception of inborn homosexuality has paved the way for rights and recognition, but increasingly as gay and bisexual women’s voices are heard, the biological determinist position looks less tenable.
Danny Rudd
A Challenge…
A lot of men these days proudly declare themselves feminists, or talk about being in touch with their feminine side… but what does that actually mean? Isn’t that an acknowledgement that each of us has a spark of female inside us? Doesn’t that mean we’re all just the tiniest bit transgendered? Funny, then, that we sensitive new age guys don’t give ourselves girl’s names.
Say what?
That’s a bit extreme, I hear you say, surely? The very idea makes even the most sensitive, most new age-y guys squirm. But if we are really, truly pro-female and comfortable with our inner femininity, however slight, we shouldn’t have any trouble with it. If we do, we’re hypocrites.
I gave myself a girl’s name. At first I kept it to myself, and that was weird enough. I found it hard just thinking of a girl’s name I could comfortably call myself… until I realised I wouldn’t feel comfortable with any girl’s name, because while I’m pretty darn feminist, I have some deep-seated discomfort with the idea of people calling me a girl in a derogatory way. Society tells us subtly that it’s not acceptable, and we listen. But after trying fairly androgynous-sounding names like Danni [sic] and Tara, I pushed myself and picked something more feminine, precisely because it made me uncomfortable. Then when I let my friends know I wanted to try it on for a day, they made it pretty obvious they thought I was being stupid, I got the message loud and clear. As a guy, I’m not allowed to be a Sarah.
But for a girl to have a guy’s name, like Terri or Jo, or even a name derived from a male name, like Geraldine or Paula, is quite normal… do you see the double standard here? It’s ok for a girl to ‘aspire’ to manliness, not just in name but in things like confidence and comfort of clothing and so on, but for a guy to look like a girl… that’s just not on. That’s because as a society, we still stupidly think there’s something inferior about femaleness. And that’s what’s behind effeminate males and drag queens being harassed and male-to-female transgender people being called immoral or perverted.
THAT’S not on.
So come on guys, put yourselves to the test… give yourself a girl’s name, even for just a day, and see if it makes you think or feel any differently. What are you afraid of?
Danny Rudd
Poison Seed
I don’t know whether I should be relieved or horrified that a lot of young bisexual and gay men these days don’t know what the term ‘bug chasing’ means.
According to that veritable fount of knowledge, Wikipedia: bugchasing (or bug chasing) is a slang term for a subculture of gay men who desire, and actively pursue HIV infection. Bugchasers ‘chase the bug’ by seeking sexual partners who are HIV positive for the purpose of having unprotected sex and sero-converting; ‘giftgivers’ are HIV+ men who attempt to infect bugchasers with HIV.
That’s insane, right? Why would anyone actually want to contract HIV?
There’s a lot of debate about how prevalent this behaviour actually is. A widely discredited article in Rolling Stone a couple of years back suggested that up to 25% of people who contract HIV do so on purpose, while some researchers consider it little more than an internet fantasy. But it does exist.
People who consider themselves bugchasers want to take control of their sex lives and destiny… basically, they see HIV infection as inevitable and just want to get it out of the way. A lot of them think using condoms is unnatural and gets in the way of their sexual pleasure by reducing the sensitivity of their penis. The problem is that these guys don’t know what they’re getting themselves into. Medications are available now which, while not curing the disease, can prolong an infected person’s life and to some extent hide the more unpleasant aspects. And in the States, doctors prescribe steroids to HIV+ men to prevent muscle wasting, and as a result a lot of positive men are able to achieve the trim, muscular looks the rest of us aspire to and desire.
Coupled with this, there is an alarming recent trend in gay pornography to glamorise ‘bare-backing’ or unprotected anal sex. There are now HIV+ gay porn stars saying that their positive status allows them to indulge in unprotected orgiastic behaviour without fear of the consequences, because they’ve already got the worst thing they can get, and thanks to the medications, it’s not doing them any noticeable harm. One such porn star is Treasure Island Media’s Dawson, the hulkingly well-built poster boy for ‘carefree’ HIV+ sexuality. So the message is clear: you can look hotter and get more sex if you've got the bug.
Sounds great, right? Trouble is, while outwardly you might look attractive and able to have as much sex as you want with whomever, there’s a whole lot else going on that the glamour account of HIV isn’t letting you in on. All those medications cause really uncomfortable and sometimes crippling side effects, and they’re not foolproof. You could get another strain of HIV from unsafe sex that your current medication can’t protect you from, get sick quickly and die unpleasantly. Or if you live in a country where the drugs aren’t covered by insurance or welfare and you can’t afford them, you’re in for an excruciating, drawn out death, being ugly to boot, as opportunistic skin infections tarnish your good looks.
The bugchasers could know all this, but they don’t. Why? Well, partly they’re just sick of hearing all the warnings, it’s like the news: you get desensitised after a while. But more so, the gay community is deeply age-segregated: we younger guys just don’t get to know the older guys because we don’t want them hitting on us. We’re only interested in the hot boys, who mostly happen to be young, like ourselves. This is all perfectly natural, really, we’re a pretty conceited lot, but this segregation means that we don’t hear the stories the older guys could tell. And maybe we don’t want to: we’re young, this is supposed to be the time of our lives, we don’t want to think about death. But the truth is, the older guys saw their friends, lovers and sex partners dying all around them, they haven’t forgotten, and now we’re at risk and we’re not listening to the stories that might help us to take more responsibility for ourselves and each other.
The point of all this is that it really is desperately important for all you guys who are having receptive anal sex, whether straight, bi or gay, to protect yourselves by insisting your sex partner(s) use condoms. Don’t be fooled into thinking it doesn’t matter – because getting HIV infection will seriously fuck up your life. I have friends who are positive, and all the discrimination, shame, cramps, diarrhoea, vomiting, lesions and blindness aren’t worth it. Believe me.
Danny Rudd
Friday, March 30, 2007
The Second Coming Out -- Deviant, CHAFF 2007
Bisexuality is a difficult topic for psychologists, queer theorists, Christian conservatives and a whole lot of other people out there. It’s not about sexual orientation, as we understand heterosexual or homosexual orientation, rather, it defies the very concept of orientation, refusing to be pinned down, insisting that sexuality is fluid and boundless. It poses some of the most interesting and complex challenges for queer theorists and sexologists – so complex, in fact, that that these questions are very often ignored. The results of my own investigations in our campus library and in town were sadly unsurprising; there is a real dearth of material available on the subject. Unfortunately, this is pretty much the state of affairs around the world, so here I will endeavour to cast a little light on the topic.
We’re taught to see duality in almost everything in our lives: male and female, light and dark, hot and cold, moral and immoral, to name but a few, and our perspectives of sex are no different; we generally only think in terms of gay and straight. But human sexuality is a little more complex than that; you simply can’t squeeze the full range of human sexual feelings and behaviours into only two classifications. And so, it’s generally agreed that a minimum of three categories is needed to represent these varied attractions and activities: heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual.
Misinformation abounds on any topic that involves human sexuality. However, it seems to be particularly prevalent where homosexuality and bisexuality are concerned. Some common myths about bisexuality are:
Everybody is bisexual
WRONG!! Kinsey found that only a very small minority of adults identify themselves as bisexual on his 7 level rating scale. His team found that the vast majority of adults rate themselves as either “0” (purely heterosexual; attracted only to members of the opposite gender) or “6” (purely homosexual; attracted only to members of the same sex.) and that in truth, only about 2% of the adult population is bisexual (ratings 1 to 5). Of these, only a very small minority are attracted to both men and women equally and identify themselves with a “3” rating.
Nobody is bisexual
WRONG!! Christian conservatives and the gay and lesbian community have generally agreed on one thing over the years: that bisexuality doesn’t exist. It’s easier to come out as bi now, but typically gays and lesbians have regarded bisexuals as fellow homos who just won’t play ball and come fully out of the closet (I used to get this all the time), while our conservative religious friends have repeatedly and emphatically denied the ontological existence of any sexual identity other than straight.
Bisexuality is just a phase
For some it may be. For example, some gay girls and guys try to ‘pass’ or hide from society's homophobia by developing sexual relationships with people of the opposite sex. A few even go so far as marrying. These relationships aren’t satisfying and usually don’t last very long though; the individual remains a homosexual. My experience has actually been the other way around, I came out as gay from the get-go, when I’d finally dealt with my religious issues, and only later came to acknowledge my bisexuality. Still others know themselves to be bi from an early age, or experiment and decide it’s not for them.
Bisexuals are equally attracted to both genders
A common misconception is that to be a bisexual, you must be sexually attracted to men and women equally. This is definitely not true. In the Kinsey scale described above, a person who is equally attracted to both men and women is a "3." Kinsey and others have found many bisexuals who identify themselves as a 1, 2 (i.e. mainly attracted to members of the opposite gender), or a 4 or 5 (i.e. mainly attracted to members of the same gender). Many individuals, although attracted to both men and women, have a real preference. The thing I find most interesting, personally, is that these attractions aren’t immutably fixed, that different things about different people, at different times of our lives, can be appealing.
Bisexuals “...possesses a generally indiscriminate sexual desire toward persons of both sexes”
This is a quotation from America, the national Roman Catholic weekly. However, all adults, including those with a bisexual orientation are known to be attracted to only some persons and not to others. We all discriminate on the basis of age, physical attractiveness, body style, etc. My bisexuality doesn’t mean I’ll lust after just anybody.
Bisexuals are incapable of monogamy
This is perhaps the most prevalent assumption about bisexuality, and has caused me so much grief I gave up identifying as bi for a while; it just wasn’t worth the arguments. You tell your girlfriend or boyfriend you’re bi, they instantly assume you’re going to cheat on them. But many bisexuals maintain loving, exclusive relationships with one significant other over considerable time, God knows I have. Similarly, Johnny Straight-Boy might be attracted to a substantial percentage of the 1.5 billion of adult women in the world, and yet, he may be quite capable of committing himself to a single Jill. Be fair, eh?
Bisexuals are only satisfied if they have sexual partners of both genders
Wrong again. Bisexuals are attracted to both genders, but we don’t necessarily act on our feelings of attraction, and are quite capable of developing exclusive, stable relationships. The term bisexuality is descriptive of how people feel, not necessarily how they act: a person can feel attractions to both men and women, decide to remain celibate or only become involved in relationships with persons of a particular gender, and still be considered a bisexual by themselves and others.
Bisexuals alternate genders in their relationships
Some people actually think that if a bisexual person ends a relationship with a man, their next sexual partner will definitely be a woman -- or vice versa. WRONG!! Nobody plans who he or she will fall in love with, it just happens.
Bisexuals have the same problems as gays and lesbians
Not necessarily. True, bisexuals who admit to or act on an attraction to a person of the same sex run the same risk as gays and lesbians, of being victims of gay bashing, being discriminated against in hiring, being fired from their job or refused accommodation, even losing custody of their children. But there are many other factors to consider, for instance, a bisexual who keeps his or her attraction to the same sex a secret can pass in society as a heterosexual and not be at risk of homophobia.
Some openly bisexual individuals are actually subjected to prejudice from the lesbian/gay community. When gay and lesbian communities were first establishing themselves last century, bisexuals were actually considered traitors! These days, however, this animosity has virtually disappeared as more gay/lesbian groups have evolved to become gay/lesbian/bisexual groups.
If you’ve always felt a little untruthful calling yourself straight or if, like me, you put on the gay hat and found it didn’t quite fit, do some reading and open your eyes to yourself and all the strange, wonderful and perversely normal things you could be.
Two great books, if you can find them, are: Vice Versa: Bisexuality and the Eroticism of Everyday Life by Marjorie Garber, and Queer Theories by Donald E. Hall. Don’t tie yourself up in knots about it, and remember, there are people around to help you out if it’s all new and scary to you. Try UniQ, or pop in and see a counsellor on campus.
DannyR
We’re taught to see duality in almost everything in our lives: male and female, light and dark, hot and cold, moral and immoral, to name but a few, and our perspectives of sex are no different; we generally only think in terms of gay and straight. But human sexuality is a little more complex than that; you simply can’t squeeze the full range of human sexual feelings and behaviours into only two classifications. And so, it’s generally agreed that a minimum of three categories is needed to represent these varied attractions and activities: heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual.
Misinformation abounds on any topic that involves human sexuality. However, it seems to be particularly prevalent where homosexuality and bisexuality are concerned. Some common myths about bisexuality are:
Everybody is bisexual
WRONG!! Kinsey found that only a very small minority of adults identify themselves as bisexual on his 7 level rating scale. His team found that the vast majority of adults rate themselves as either “0” (purely heterosexual; attracted only to members of the opposite gender) or “6” (purely homosexual; attracted only to members of the same sex.) and that in truth, only about 2% of the adult population is bisexual (ratings 1 to 5). Of these, only a very small minority are attracted to both men and women equally and identify themselves with a “3” rating.
Nobody is bisexual
WRONG!! Christian conservatives and the gay and lesbian community have generally agreed on one thing over the years: that bisexuality doesn’t exist. It’s easier to come out as bi now, but typically gays and lesbians have regarded bisexuals as fellow homos who just won’t play ball and come fully out of the closet (I used to get this all the time), while our conservative religious friends have repeatedly and emphatically denied the ontological existence of any sexual identity other than straight.
Bisexuality is just a phase
For some it may be. For example, some gay girls and guys try to ‘pass’ or hide from society's homophobia by developing sexual relationships with people of the opposite sex. A few even go so far as marrying. These relationships aren’t satisfying and usually don’t last very long though; the individual remains a homosexual. My experience has actually been the other way around, I came out as gay from the get-go, when I’d finally dealt with my religious issues, and only later came to acknowledge my bisexuality. Still others know themselves to be bi from an early age, or experiment and decide it’s not for them.
Bisexuals are equally attracted to both genders
A common misconception is that to be a bisexual, you must be sexually attracted to men and women equally. This is definitely not true. In the Kinsey scale described above, a person who is equally attracted to both men and women is a "3." Kinsey and others have found many bisexuals who identify themselves as a 1, 2 (i.e. mainly attracted to members of the opposite gender), or a 4 or 5 (i.e. mainly attracted to members of the same gender). Many individuals, although attracted to both men and women, have a real preference. The thing I find most interesting, personally, is that these attractions aren’t immutably fixed, that different things about different people, at different times of our lives, can be appealing.
Bisexuals “...possesses a generally indiscriminate sexual desire toward persons of both sexes”
This is a quotation from America, the national Roman Catholic weekly. However, all adults, including those with a bisexual orientation are known to be attracted to only some persons and not to others. We all discriminate on the basis of age, physical attractiveness, body style, etc. My bisexuality doesn’t mean I’ll lust after just anybody.
Bisexuals are incapable of monogamy
This is perhaps the most prevalent assumption about bisexuality, and has caused me so much grief I gave up identifying as bi for a while; it just wasn’t worth the arguments. You tell your girlfriend or boyfriend you’re bi, they instantly assume you’re going to cheat on them. But many bisexuals maintain loving, exclusive relationships with one significant other over considerable time, God knows I have. Similarly, Johnny Straight-Boy might be attracted to a substantial percentage of the 1.5 billion of adult women in the world, and yet, he may be quite capable of committing himself to a single Jill. Be fair, eh?
Bisexuals are only satisfied if they have sexual partners of both genders
Wrong again. Bisexuals are attracted to both genders, but we don’t necessarily act on our feelings of attraction, and are quite capable of developing exclusive, stable relationships. The term bisexuality is descriptive of how people feel, not necessarily how they act: a person can feel attractions to both men and women, decide to remain celibate or only become involved in relationships with persons of a particular gender, and still be considered a bisexual by themselves and others.
Bisexuals alternate genders in their relationships
Some people actually think that if a bisexual person ends a relationship with a man, their next sexual partner will definitely be a woman -- or vice versa. WRONG!! Nobody plans who he or she will fall in love with, it just happens.
Bisexuals have the same problems as gays and lesbians
Not necessarily. True, bisexuals who admit to or act on an attraction to a person of the same sex run the same risk as gays and lesbians, of being victims of gay bashing, being discriminated against in hiring, being fired from their job or refused accommodation, even losing custody of their children. But there are many other factors to consider, for instance, a bisexual who keeps his or her attraction to the same sex a secret can pass in society as a heterosexual and not be at risk of homophobia.
Some openly bisexual individuals are actually subjected to prejudice from the lesbian/gay community. When gay and lesbian communities were first establishing themselves last century, bisexuals were actually considered traitors! These days, however, this animosity has virtually disappeared as more gay/lesbian groups have evolved to become gay/lesbian/bisexual groups.
If you’ve always felt a little untruthful calling yourself straight or if, like me, you put on the gay hat and found it didn’t quite fit, do some reading and open your eyes to yourself and all the strange, wonderful and perversely normal things you could be.
Two great books, if you can find them, are: Vice Versa: Bisexuality and the Eroticism of Everyday Life by Marjorie Garber, and Queer Theories by Donald E. Hall. Don’t tie yourself up in knots about it, and remember, there are people around to help you out if it’s all new and scary to you. Try UniQ, or pop in and see a counsellor on campus.
DannyR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Science vs Religion
Heart
I guess I just care too much...