Disclaimer: the ideas in this post are just my own philosophical musings, not facts.

For most of my life I felt constantly hungry for love. Even while someone was being loving to me I would feel desperate for more. It wasn't until I was 27 that I even had one moment where I was receiving love and felt satisfied and like I didn't need more -- would enjoy it, but didn't need it. And it wasn't until I was 33 that I ever had that sensation on a regular basis.

I have this theory that until a person reaches a saturation point with loving nourishment, they can never feel relaxed or secure in any of their relationships. This one experience is so pivotal that it is like a stage of development, and a human's life perspective is profoundly changed once they have this experience. Parents are supposed to give this experience to their kids so that their kids can then enter adulthood ready to meet others as equals. Instead most parents don't, and most people enter adulthood still desperate for love, wanting to get without having to give, feeling like there is never enough. Like starved children we snatch at any nourishment offered and many times spill it everywhere.

People who felt fully loved as children often can't relate to feeling insecure or needy without logical cause. These people are put off by the expression of those feelings, thinking of them as irrational or silly, but I think feeling "full" of love is a real human need as powerful as the need for food or air. For me at least, having food in my hand is not comforting when it is not going to fill me and I doubt any more will ever come. We scarf it down as quick as we can so we have our hands free to grab the next scrap. Or we "save" it for when we will need it more, which is a day that almost never comes.

There are so many harms that can spring from this. Perhaps the biggest is that people who have never experienced saturation (I will call them hungry, for lack of a better word) are willing to accept all manner of ill treatment along with love because they are starving. It is ridiculous to expect people who have never had enough food to ever eat slowly or turn down crappy food.

In the same way, it makes no sense to expect people who have never felt fully loved to ever be satisfied with an easy amount of love, and it makes no sense to expect them to be able to say no to people who offer love as an appetizer to abuse. So many hungry people raised by abusive or selfish parents have absolutely no way to tell what is real love and what is bribery.

Many times we choke out our opportunities for real love because we get so desperate and cling so hard. We can delude ourselves, magnifying small kindnesses and minimizing all negatives to try and trick ourselves into feeling nourished; this prevents either person in the relationship from learning and growing. We can lose ourselves, becoming so desperate for the other person to keep loving us and not leave us that we compromise more and more of who we are until we are just a reflection of the other.

The worst part is that often, someone has to have experienced saturation themselves to be able to give it to someone else. A hungry person can't purely focus on nourishing someone else because as you feed them a part of you watches jealously, wishing you were the one getting that care.

I recognize it so easily now and it always makes me ache and feel an urge to throw out my whole life and dedicate it to making this person feel loved. But I can't do that, and it wouldn't be a good way to spend my life, pouring myself out endlessly for people who literally can't give back. That's not remotely sustainable.

Other than meeting one of those lucky ones who got saturated with love in childhood, I think we can only hope to find someone who wants to get love in the way we are inclined to give it, and wants to give love in the way we want to get it. I think other than basic ethics, this is the number 1 most important thing in a relationship.

I'd advise my former self to ask, first and foremost, as a precursor to close friendship and/or romance, "think of the three closest people in your life. What do you think they get out of their relationship with you? how do you bring them nourishment and joy most often? most easily? most happily? and on the other hand, what actions of others make you feel nourished and contented?" and then I'd consider whether I could feel nourished by the same things, and if I could nourish them in the way that works best for them.

"If you had to deal with what I've had to deal with, you'd realize that what you're going through is nothing."

Statements like this have always infuriated me -- not just because of their condescension and arrogance, not just because they are callous and invalidating, but because they are completely illogical. Suffering is a condition of emotion, and emotion is not quantifiable and not the same from person to person. Even if the situation is exactly the same, it will affect people in different ways; personality and experience affects the resultant emotion just as much as the situation itself.

For my current self, having my looks insulted by a stranger ( would be cause for... )

And that may be a fanciful example, but the same is true for all pain. For one person the death of a parent is devastating; for another, it's just another day. For one person the death of a pet fish is just a fact of life; for another, it is cause for deep sorrow. Thus you cannot say that the death of a parent is more painful than the death of a pet fish, because suffering is more about personality and experience than it is about the situation itself.

I am convinced that the only meaningful way to measure suffering is by how much it affects a person, and the only meaningful reason to measure suffering is to learn how much support that person needs in that situation.

LJ idol topic 2: "Uphill, Both Ways, Barefoot"

"If you had to deal with what I've had to deal with, you'd realize that what you're going through is nothing."

Statements like this have always infuriated me -- not just because of their condescension and arrogance, not just because they are callous and invalidating, but because they are completely illogical. Suffering is a condition of emotion, and emotion is not quantifiable and not the same from person to person. Even if the situation is exactly the same, it will affect people in different ways; personality and experience affects the resultant emotion just as much as the situation itself.

For my current self, having my looks insulted by a stranger ( would be cause for... )

And that may be a fanciful example, but the same is true for all pain. For one person the death of a parent is devastating; for another, it's just another day. For one person the death of a pet fish is just a fact of life; for another, it is cause for deep sorrow. Thus you cannot say that the death of a parent is more painful than the death of a pet fish, because suffering is more about personality and experience than it is about the situation itself.

I am convinced that the only meaningful way to measure suffering is by how much it affects a person, and the only meaningful reason to measure suffering is to learn how much support that person needs in that situation.

LJ idol topic 2: "Uphill, Both Ways, Barefoot"

When we were out last Saturday, Kat K suggested I might be an "Indigo" after I spoke about something intuitive/precognitive (can't remember what it was now). I responded by saying that I believe everyone has intuition, and both Ash and Kat K disagreed. I've been thinking about it since then.

I absolutely DO NOT believe in "indigo" "crystal" "rainbow" or super-psychic children, or more accurately, I don't believe those things are inborn traits of certain special people, but that they are traits which ALL human beings have the potential for. Most people simply refuse to believe in or develop them -- despite experiencing aspects such as déjà vu (sometimes that's just remembering a similar situation, but sometimes it is remembering an important aspect of your life purpose, which I believe you knew before birth), precognitive dreams, a 'bad feeling' or a 'good feeling' or an urge to contact someone or knowing who is calling before you look at the phone or other things that are not considered aspects of intuition/psychic ability even though they are. The only children who are not "indigo" or "crystal" are those who have already been stamped into hiding those qualities -- through parents or peers who repress them. No child is born without these gifts, and no adult lacks the ability to draw them out and develop them. ( the traits are not appearing for the first time; they are being recognized and appreciated for the first time )

I am wholeheartedly and fiercely equalist in spiritual matters as in everything else. Every single person is just as gifted as everyone else. I think believing in special gifts for a select group is elitist and serves to cause those who believe themselves to be 'gifted' to be lazy, as they feel they were born with their gifts and don't need to develop themselves, and it causes those who don't believe themselves to be 'gifted' to feel helpless and not bother to develop themselves because they think it has no point. Believing that traits are inborn rather than self-created causes people to stagnate.

I do understand the draw of the concept -- it is wonderful to feel part of a group, especially part of a group that is better than everyone else. But like all exclusionary groups, it divides more than it draws together. Instead of feeling a kinship with the whole world, a person who believes themselves to be "Indigo" feels a kinship with other "Indigos" and feels no kinship or a lesser kinship with the rest of humankind (or sees them as 'less evolved' and in need of guidance by the more-evolved "Indigos"). It's natural to be more drawn to people who are like you -- but deciding this on a group basis rather than an individual basis is discriminatory.

When we were out last Saturday, Kat K suggested I might be an "Indigo" after I spoke about something intuitive/precognitive (can't remember what it was now). I responded by saying that I believe everyone has intuition, and both Ash and Kat K disagreed. I've been thinking about it since then.

I absolutely DO NOT believe in "indigo" "crystal" "rainbow" or super-psychic children, or more accurately, I don't believe those things are inborn traits of certain special people, but that they are traits which ALL human beings have the potential for. Most people simply refuse to believe in or develop them -- despite experiencing aspects such as déjà vu (sometimes that's just remembering a similar situation, but sometimes it is remembering an important aspect of your life purpose, which I believe you knew before birth), precognitive dreams, a 'bad feeling' or a 'good feeling' or an urge to contact someone or knowing who is calling before you look at the phone or other things that are not considered aspects of intuition/psychic ability even though they are. The only children who are not "indigo" or "crystal" are those who have already been stamped into hiding those qualities -- through parents or peers who repress them. No child is born without these gifts, and no adult lacks the ability to draw them out and develop them. ( the traits are not appearing for the first time; they are being recognized and appreciated for the first time )

I am wholeheartedly and fiercely equalist in spiritual matters as in everything else. Every single person is just as gifted as everyone else. I think believing in special gifts for a select group is elitist and serves to cause those who believe themselves to be 'gifted' to be lazy, as they feel they were born with their gifts and don't need to develop themselves, and it causes those who don't believe themselves to be 'gifted' to feel helpless and not bother to develop themselves because they think it has no point. Believing that traits are inborn rather than self-created causes people to stagnate.

I do understand the draw of the concept -- it is wonderful to feel part of a group, especially part of a group that is better than everyone else. But like all exclusionary groups, it divides more than it draws together. Instead of feeling a kinship with the whole world, a person who believes themselves to be "Indigo" feels a kinship with other "Indigos" and feels no kinship or a lesser kinship with the rest of humankind (or sees them as 'less evolved' and in need of guidance by the more-evolved "Indigos"). It's natural to be more drawn to people who are like you -- but deciding this on a group basis rather than an individual basis is discriminatory.

the wonderful thing about falling in love is that you learn everything about that person, and so quickly! and if it's true love, then you start to see yourself through their eyes, and it brings out the best in you... it's almost as if you are falling in love with yourself.

Being in love... I feel in love with everyone, everything. It feels almost too much to bear to go out in public because everyone is so impossibly beautiful and wonderful it overwhelms me. I want to kneel at the feet of each person and honor their unutterably amazing, fascinating Self. It's like being hurried through a gallery of the most intricate, meaningful paintings, and only getting the merest glimpse of each one. I have felt this for always, but never so strongly. Never so fully.

Everyone is so important. Whenever I hear of someone dying, I feel a loss because most likely, that person's wisdom, their view, has been lost to all of us who are still here. The thing they had to teach us rests only in the minds of those who knew them, and soon fades. I want everyone's story! If our education consisted of learning others' life stories, how wise would we be? How much would we understand? That is the true wisdom, learning other people. If you learn even one person in a deep way, you learn more than you could ever know from all the objective facts.

Instead we hurry (or are hurried) through the gallery of life, taking perfunctory glimpses, and don't even consider that each painting is more than a splash of random color. (we concentrate on the walls and floor!) We don't even look at ourselves, thinking that we are just random splotches too. Most of the time we draw curtains over most of ourselves so that others can't see our 'splotchiness' -- and we rob others of the joy, the wisdom, the love that they could get from seeing our trueselves. And we measure everything by how it matches the little we know of our own colors, instead of exploring, delving into others and realizing how amazing it is that we all have so much intricacy, so much complexity that we could gaze and gaze forever and there would always be something we hadn't noticed before.

I want to cry out, don't hide! please don't hide from me, I want to honor you. I want to know absolutely everything about you. When I offer you the opportunity to gaze at my trueself, please don't flinch and hide yourself, open to me also. We are the same, perfect in our difference.

( I have a fanciful dream )

This is a big part of the reason LJ is so important to me. Here, people pull back the curtains -- some a little, some a lot -- and I can learn others. And I can explore myself, and save my discoveries so that others can see my intricacy as well. I want to offer people the chance to know me, because just like everyone else, deep knowledge of me brings wisdom. I am a facet of God/dess that no one else can ever show.

the wonderful thing about falling in love is that you learn everything about that person, and so quickly! and if it's true love, then you start to see yourself through their eyes, and it brings out the best in you... it's almost as if you are falling in love with yourself.

Being in love... I feel in love with everyone, everything. It feels almost too much to bear to go out in public because everyone is so impossibly beautiful and wonderful it overwhelms me. I want to kneel at the feet of each person and honor their unutterably amazing, fascinating Self. It's like being hurried through a gallery of the most intricate, meaningful paintings, and only getting the merest glimpse of each one. I have felt this for always, but never so strongly. Never so fully.

Everyone is so important. Whenever I hear of someone dying, I feel a loss because most likely, that person's wisdom, their view, has been lost to all of us who are still here. The thing they had to teach us rests only in the minds of those who knew them, and soon fades. I want everyone's story! If our education consisted of learning others' life stories, how wise would we be? How much would we understand? That is the true wisdom, learning other people. If you learn even one person in a deep way, you learn more than you could ever know from all the objective facts.

Instead we hurry (or are hurried) through the gallery of life, taking perfunctory glimpses, and don't even consider that each painting is more than a splash of random color. (we concentrate on the walls and floor!) We don't even look at ourselves, thinking that we are just random splotches too. Most of the time we draw curtains over most of ourselves so that others can't see our 'splotchiness' -- and we rob others of the joy, the wisdom, the love that they could get from seeing our trueselves. And we measure everything by how it matches the little we know of our own colors, instead of exploring, delving into others and realizing how amazing it is that we all have so much intricacy, so much complexity that we could gaze and gaze forever and there would always be something we hadn't noticed before.

I want to cry out, don't hide! please don't hide from me, I want to honor you. I want to know absolutely everything about you. When I offer you the opportunity to gaze at my trueself, please don't flinch and hide yourself, open to me also. We are the same, perfect in our difference.

( I have a fanciful dream )

This is a big part of the reason LJ is so important to me. Here, people pull back the curtains -- some a little, some a lot -- and I can learn others. And I can explore myself, and save my discoveries so that others can see my intricacy as well. I want to offer people the chance to know me, because just like everyone else, deep knowledge of me brings wisdom. I am a facet of God/dess that no one else can ever show.

the wonderful thing about falling in love is that you learn everything about that person, and so quickly! and if it's true love, then you start to see yourself through their eyes, and it brings out the best in you... it's almost as if you are falling in love with yourself.

Being in love... I feel in love with everyone, everything. It feels almost too much to bear to go out in public because everyone is so impossibly beautiful and wonderful it overwhelms me. I want to kneel at the feet of each person and honor their unutterably amazing, fascinating Self. It's like being hurried through a gallery of the most intricate, meaningful paintings, and only getting the merest glimpse of each one. I have felt this for always, but never so strongly. Never so fully.

Everyone is so important. Whenever I hear of someone dying, I feel a loss because most likely, that person's wisdom, their view, has been lost to all of us who are still here. The thing they had to teach us rests only in the minds of those who knew them, and soon fades. I want everyone's story! If our education consisted of learning others' life stories, how wise would we be? How much would we understand? That is the true wisdom, learning other people. If you learn even one person in a deep way, you learn more than you could ever know from all the objective facts.

Instead we hurry (or are hurried) through the gallery of life, taking perfunctory glimpses, and don't even consider that each painting is more than a splash of random color. (we concentrate on the walls and floor!) We don't even look at ourselves, thinking that we are just random splotches too. Most of the time we draw curtains over most of ourselves so that others can't see our 'splotchiness' -- and we rob others of the joy, the wisdom, the love that they could get from seeing our trueselves. And we measure everything by how it matches the little we know of our own colors, instead of exploring, delving into others and realizing how amazing it is that we all have so much intricacy, so much complexity that we could gaze and gaze forever and there would always be something we hadn't noticed before.

I want to cry out, don't hide! please don't hide from me, I want to honor you. I want to know absolutely everything about you. When I offer you the opportunity to gaze at my trueself, please don't flinch and hide yourself, open to me also. We are the same, perfect in our difference.

( I have a fanciful dream )

This is a big part of the reason LJ is so important to me. Here, people pull back the curtains -- some a little, some a lot -- and I can learn others. And I can explore myself, and save my discoveries so that others can see my intricacy as well. I want to offer people the chance to know me, because just like everyone else, deep knowledge of me brings wisdom. I am a facet of God/dess that no one else can ever show.

Note: I've changed my philosophies since this post

I'm polyamorous. For me, this means that I am open to multiple committed relationships, and I am open to sexual experiences (with my partners and with others) for the sake of the growth and connection that they offer.

Updated from my first post on polyamory: I believe healthy sex is a human-to-human experience of emotional and spiritual intimacy, a temporary blending into one being. I believe that every time you have sex with someone, there is a spiritual exchange -- you get a tiny piece of their spirit, and they get a tiny part of yours. The more you have sex with them, the more you exchange, and it builds the bonds between you.

For me to have sex with a person, I need the following:

mutual love & respect

I believe sex is a sacred act and needs the presence of love so that both partners are treated with full respect and honor. I see love and respect as inextricably connected. Respect recognizes oneself and the other person as having infinite worth, neither having more or less -- and I think when you see people that way you cannot help but love them.

mutual connection

This isn't easily definable, but roughly explained it is a sense that you are part of one another, bonded in some ethereal way. Both I and the other person would have to feel/recognise/believe in this.

similar view of sex

Both seeing sex as not only as a physical thing but also an instrument to increase growth and connection. And seeing sex as a co-creating project where both parties give and receive, both are active. Seeing sex as something that is not done TO someone, it is done WITH someone. I also don't think I could have sex with someone who wanted to include pain, objectifying, humiliation, or any sort of command, as I don't find those things respectful. (I like wrestling/passionate pursuit -- just not anything that imitates force or coercion)

honesty & openness

honesty: telling the truth, refraining from lying or deceiving. and openness: sharing truth freely, without prompting.

the agreement of my partner(s)

( fairly self-explanatory but I explain anyway )

((am no longer in a partnership, need to update this post))
I used to see sex as something that needed the frame of a partnership, because I felt that sex was such an intense vulnerability that it needed the safety of mutual history, mutual goals, shared life that is not easily untangled. But now, I see sex as an opportunity for so much growth in love that it is worth the risk of being broken. And I feel like I have survived having my heart broken so many times that I can survive it again, and like all the times before, the brokenness will not be more than the joy and growth. If a broken heart is the payment for experiences of love-joy-connection, I am willing to pay.

So, sex is never casual to me, but I no longer feel that I need a lifelong commitment to explore it with someone. I see sex as the most spiritual act we can perform with our bodies -- I see it like prayer. It's magic -- it has the power to transform. And like prayer, sex that is done hastily without much thought does not have much creative power. But sex done with loving, conscious choice is possibly the most powerful thing in this realm of existence.

Note: I've changed my philosophies since this post

I'm polyamorous. For me, this means that I am open to multiple committed relationships, and I am open to sexual experiences (with my partners and with others) for the sake of the growth and connection that they offer.

Updated from my first post on polyamory: I believe healthy sex is a human-to-human experience of emotional and spiritual intimacy, a temporary blending into one being. I believe that every time you have sex with someone, there is a spiritual exchange -- you get a tiny piece of their spirit, and they get a tiny part of yours. The more you have sex with them, the more you exchange, and it builds the bonds between you.

For me to have sex with a person, I need the following:

mutual love & respect

I believe sex is a sacred act and needs the presence of love so that both partners are treated with full respect and honor. I see love and respect as inextricably connected. Respect recognizes oneself and the other person as having infinite worth, neither having more or less -- and I think when you see people that way you cannot help but love them.

mutual connection

This isn't easily definable, but roughly explained it is a sense that you are part of one another, bonded in some ethereal way. Both I and the other person would have to feel/recognise/believe in this.

similar view of sex

Both seeing sex as not only as a physical thing but also an instrument to increase growth and connection. And seeing sex as a co-creating project where both parties give and receive, both are active. Seeing sex as something that is not done TO someone, it is done WITH someone. I also don't think I could have sex with someone who wanted to include pain, objectifying, humiliation, or any sort of command, as I don't find those things respectful. (I like wrestling/passionate pursuit -- just not anything that imitates force or coercion)

honesty & openness

honesty: telling the truth, refraining from lying or deceiving. and openness: sharing truth freely, without prompting.

the agreement of my partner(s)

( fairly self-explanatory but I explain anyway )

((am no longer in a partnership, need to update this post))
I used to see sex as something that needed the frame of a partnership, because I felt that sex was such an intense vulnerability that it needed the safety of mutual history, mutual goals, shared life that is not easily untangled. But now, I see sex as an opportunity for so much growth in love that it is worth the risk of being broken. And I feel like I have survived having my heart broken so many times that I can survive it again, and like all the times before, the brokenness will not be more than the joy and growth. If a broken heart is the payment for experiences of love-joy-connection, I am willing to pay.

So, sex is never casual to me, but I no longer feel that I need a lifelong commitment to explore it with someone. I see sex as the most spiritual act we can perform with our bodies -- I see it like prayer. It's magic -- it has the power to transform. And like prayer, sex that is done hastily without much thought does not have much creative power. But sex done with loving, conscious choice is possibly the most powerful thing in this realm of existence.

I'm polyamorous. For me, this means that I am open to multiple committed relationships, and I am open to sexual experiences (with my partners and with others) for the sake of the growth and connection that they offer.

Updated from my first post on polyamory: I believe healthy sex is a human-to-human experience of emotional and spiritual intimacy, a temporary blending into one being. I believe that every time you have sex with someone, there is a spiritual exchange -- you get a tiny piece of their spirit, and they get a tiny part of yours. The more you have sex with them, the more you exchange, and it builds the bonds between you.

For me to have sex with a person, I need the following:

mutual love & respect

I believe sex is a sacred act and needs the presence of love so that both partners are treated with full respect and honor. I see love and respect as inextricably connected. Respect recognizes oneself and the other person as having infinite worth, neither having more or less -- and I think when you see people that way you cannot help but love them.

mutual connection

This isn't easily definable, but roughly explained it is a sense that you are part of one another, bonded in some ethereal way. Both I and the other person would have to feel/recognise/believe in this.

similar view of sex

Both seeing sex as not only as a physical thing but also an instrument to increase growth and connection. And seeing sex as a co-creating project where both parties give and receive, both are active. Seeing sex as something that is not done TO someone, it is done WITH someone. I also don't think I could have sex with someone who wanted to include pain, restraints, objectifying, or any sort of command, as I don't find those things respectful. (I like wrestling/passionate pursuit -- just not anything that imitates force or coercion)

honesty & openness

honesty: telling the truth, refraining from lying or deceiving. and openness: sharing truth freely, without prompting.

the agreement of my partner(s)

( fairly self-explanatory but I explain anyway )

I used to see sex as something that needed the frame of a partnership, because I felt that sex was such an intense vulnerability that it needed the safety of mutual history, mutual goals, shared life that is not easily untangled. But now, I see sex as an opportunity for so much growth in love that it is worth the risk of being broken. And I feel like I have survived having my heart broken so many times that I can survive it again, and like all the times before, the brokenness will not be more than the joy and growth. If a broken heart is the payment for experiences of love-joy-connection, I am willing to pay.

So, sex is never casual to me, but I no longer feel that I need a lifelong commitment to explore it with someone. I see sex as the most spiritual act we can perform with our bodies -- I see it like prayer. It's magic -- it has the power to transform. And like prayer, sex that is done hastily without much thought does not have much creative power. But sex done with loving, conscious choice is possibly the most powerful thing in this realm of existence.

... the post you've all been waiting for! ;-)

When sexually cheating on a partner is a repeated behavior, I have sympathy only for the one cheated on, as I see the cheater as a liar. But the one-time-slip-up kind of cheating? Part of me finds it horrible and destructive and selfish, but a large part of me feels intense sympathy for the cheater. Maybe this is because I've had so many dreams about 'accidentally' cheating on Ben, because (in dream reality) I forgot I was with him. I know this isn't logical in real life, but my subconscious says that there is a kind of insanity, a kind of drug-rush, that can happen in almost the same way. Like a person dying of thirst might kill someone for water, no matter how much of a pacifist they might be. Don't get me wrong -- I still think it is a horrible thing to do, and not permissible or excusable in any way -- I just... feel for both parties. Especially when the cheater genuinely loved the person they cheated on.

( I used to be absolutely petrified that I would accidentally cheat on Ben... )

Some people have the mistaken concept that polyamory means cheating when nobody is allowed to get mad about it. Not so! Cheating breaks a polyamorous relationship just as it breaks a monogamous one. Cheating is promising a person something and then not giving it; in monogamy, it means telling a person that you won't share sex with anyone else, and then doing it anyway and turning your promise into a lie. Cheating hurts because it breaks trust, because it is the biggest lie you can tell. Cheating is breaking the rules, whichever those are. Monogamy and polyamory have different rules, and make different promises. It is just as possible to cheat in a polyamorous relationship! For instance, Ben and I have the promise that we will get the other person's approval before embarking on any romantic relationship, because we trust each other to have the wisdom and generosity to help us choose the right people. If we were to have an additional romantic relationship WITHOUT getting approval from the other, that would be breaking the rules of our relationship and cheating.

Some believe that cheating hurts because an individual only has 100 points of love they can give at a time, and if they give to two people then each person only gets 50 instead of 100 -- less than they deserve, less than they can live on. But love doesn't work like that! It's not measurable or divisible. When you give love back and forth it increases on both sides, it doesn't stay the same amount -- that's the magic of it. And your heart doesn't have role-slots to be filled by specific people -- you can love more than one person with your WHOLE heart. Sometimes one person might be drained or hurting and not have a lot of love to give, but that is true of a monogamous or polyamorous relationship, with one difference: in a polyamorous relationship, the hurting one has more than one lover to pour into them and help them get back on their feet. A person does have limits, but some people have a limit of several partners rather than one.

Because this post is kinda all over the place, have some links to help clarify: a site that answers common questions about / reactions to polyamory & why I am polyamorous.

... the post you've all been waiting for! ;-)

When sexually cheating on a partner is a repeated behavior, I have sympathy only for the one cheated on, as I see the cheater as a liar. But the one-time-slip-up kind of cheating? Part of me finds it horrible and destructive and selfish, but a large part of me feels intense sympathy for the cheater. Maybe this is because I've had so many dreams about 'accidentally' cheating on Ben, because (in dream reality) I forgot I was with him. I know this isn't logical in real life, but my subconscious says that there is a kind of insanity, a kind of drug-rush, that can happen in almost the same way. Like a person dying of thirst might kill someone for water, no matter how much of a pacifist they might be. Don't get me wrong -- I still think it is a horrible thing to do, and not permissible or excusable in any way -- I just... feel for both parties. Especially when the cheater genuinely loved the person they cheated on.

( I used to be absolutely petrified that I would accidentally cheat on Ben... )

Some people have the mistaken concept that polyamory means cheating when nobody is allowed to get mad about it. Not so! Cheating breaks a polyamorous relationship just as it breaks a monogamous one. Cheating is promising a person something and then not giving it; in monogamy, it means telling a person that you won't share sex with anyone else, and then doing it anyway and turning your promise into a lie. Cheating hurts because it breaks trust, because it is the biggest lie you can tell. Cheating is breaking the rules, whichever those are. Monogamy and polyamory have different rules, and make different promises. It is just as possible to cheat in a polyamorous relationship! For instance, Ben and I have the promise that we will get the other person's approval before embarking on any romantic relationship, because we trust each other to have the wisdom and generosity to help us choose the right people. If we were to have an additional romantic relationship WITHOUT getting approval from the other, that would be breaking the rules of our relationship and cheating.

Some believe that cheating hurts because an individual only has 100 points of love they can give at a time, and if they give to two people then each person only gets 50 instead of 100 -- less than they deserve, less than they can live on. But love doesn't work like that! It's not measurable or divisible. When you give love back and forth it increases on both sides, it doesn't stay the same amount -- that's the magic of it. And your heart doesn't have role-slots to be filled by specific people -- you can love more than one person with your WHOLE heart. Sometimes one person might be drained or hurting and not have a lot of love to give, but that is true of a monogamous or polyamorous relationship, with one difference: in a polyamorous relationship, the hurting one has more than one lover to pour into them and help them get back on their feet. A person does have limits, but some people have a limit of several partners rather than one.

Because this post is kinda all over the place, have some links to help clarify: a site that answers common questions about / reactions to polyamory & why I am polyamorous.

... the post you've all been waiting for! ;-)

When sexually cheating on a partner is a repeated behavior, I have sympathy only for the one cheated on, as I see the cheater as a liar. But the one-time-slip-up kind of cheating? Part of me finds it horrible and destructive and selfish, but a large part of me feels intense sympathy for the cheater. Maybe this is because I've had so many dreams about 'accidentally' cheating on Ben, because (in dream reality) I forgot I was with him. I know this isn't logical in real life, but my subconscious says that there is a kind of insanity, a kind of drug-rush, that can happen in almost the same way. Like a person dying of thirst might kill someone for water, no matter how much of a pacifist they might be. Don't get me wrong -- I still think it is a horrible thing to do, and not permissible or excusable in any way -- I just... feel for both parties. Especially when the cheater genuinely loved the person they cheated on.

( I used to be absolutely petrified that I would accidentally cheat on Ben... )

Some people have the mistaken concept that polyamory means cheating when nobody is allowed to get mad about it. Not so! Cheating breaks a polyamorous relationship just as it breaks a monogamous one. Cheating is promising a person something and then not giving it; in monogamy, it means telling a person that you won't share sex with anyone else, and then doing it anyway and turning your promise into a lie. Cheating hurts because it breaks trust, because it is the biggest lie you can tell. Cheating is breaking the rules, whichever those are. Monogamy and polyamory have different rules, and make different promises. It is just as possible to cheat in a polyamorous relationship! For instance, Ben and I have the promise that we will get the other person's approval before embarking on any romantic relationship, because we trust each other to have the wisdom and generosity to help us choose the right people. If we were to have an additional romantic relationship WITHOUT getting approval from the other, that would be breaking the rules of our relationship and cheating.

Some believe that cheating hurts because an individual only has 100 points of love they can give at a time, and if they give to two people then each person only gets 50 instead of 100 -- less than they deserve, less than they can live on. But love doesn't work like that! It's not measurable or divisible. When you give love back and forth it increases on both sides, it doesn't stay the same amount -- that's the magic of it. And your heart doesn't have role-slots to be filled by specific people -- you can love more than one person with your WHOLE heart. Sometimes one person might be drained or hurting and not have a lot of love to give, but that is true of a monogamous or polyamorous relationship, with one difference: in a polyamorous relationship, the hurting one has more than one lover to pour into them and help them get back on their feet. A person does have limits, but some people have a limit of several partners rather than one.

Because this post is kinda all over the place, have some links to help clarify: a site that answers common questions about / reactions to polyamory & why I am polyamorous.

something I realized when watching A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila (which I'm officially no longer ashamed of watching):

Right now, being bisexual, lesbian, or gay is a 'controversial issue' -- and while it isn't a good thing for it to STAY that way, I think it can be a good thing that it is that way. It's a catalyst for change. As a person discovers that they have feelings for the same sex, they realize that the way they have always thought may not be the best way to think. And this thought-shift also happens in their family and friends as they come out to them. Some people are going to be close-minded and resist the change, but for others, this radical shift in thinking not only gives them a whole new point of view, it teaches them how to create MORE thought-shifts. (it would be better, of course, if our parents/society taught us from the very beginning to embrace shifts in thinking, but...)

When you believe something as an integral part of your reality and then that changes, any change after that is easier, because you've been there. This part of your perceived reality changed and you survived it -- hopefully thrived though it! -- so you don't see reality as rigid and unchangeable. You see that you don't know everything; even that what which you are certain is true now, you may disbelieve tomorrow. I think this is really important for understanding one another. I can consider other people's truths to be as real as mine because I know that I might believe the way they do in the future, or I may have believed that way in the past.

And thanks to good_news_net, I learned that it was "this day in 1955, [when] seamstress Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery, Ala. bus to a white man and was arrested for violating the city's racial segregation laws." Thank you Rosa for confronting discrimination and becoming a catalyst for change ♥

something I realized when watching A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila (which I'm officially no longer ashamed of watching):

Right now, being bisexual, lesbian, or gay is a 'controversial issue' -- and while it isn't a good thing for it to STAY that way, I think it can be a good thing that it is that way. It's a catalyst for change. As a person discovers that they have feelings for the same sex, they realize that the way they have always thought may not be the best way to think. And this thought-shift also happens in their family and friends as they come out to them. Some people are going to be close-minded and resist the change, but for others, this radical shift in thinking not only gives them a whole new point of view, it teaches them how to create MORE thought-shifts. (it would be better, of course, if our parents/society taught us from the very beginning to embrace shifts in thinking, but...)

When you believe something as an integral part of your reality and then that changes, any change after that is easier, because you've been there. This part of your perceived reality changed and you survived it -- hopefully thrived though it! -- so you don't see reality as rigid and unchangeable. You see that you don't know everything; even that what which you are certain is true now, you may disbelieve tomorrow. I think this is really important for understanding one another. I can consider other people's truths to be as real as mine because I know that I might believe the way they do in the future, or I may have believed that way in the past.

And thanks to good_news_net, I learned that it was "this day in 1955, [when] seamstress Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery, Ala. bus to a white man and was arrested for violating the city's racial segregation laws." Thank you Rosa for confronting discrimination and becoming a catalyst for change ♥

something I realized when watching A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila (which I'm officially no longer ashamed of watching):

Right now, being bisexual, lesbian, or gay is a 'controversial issue' -- and while it isn't a good thing for it to STAY that way, I think it can be a good thing that it is that way. It's a catalyst for change. As a person discovers that they have feelings for the same sex, they realize that the way they have always thought may not be the best way to think. And this thought-shift also happens in their family and friends as they come out to them. Some people are going to be close-minded and resist the change, but for others, this radical shift in thinking not only gives them a whole new point of view, it teaches them how to create MORE thought-shifts. (it would be better, of course, if our parents/society taught us from the very beginning to embrace shifts in thinking, but...)

When you believe something as an integral part of your reality and then that changes, any change after that is easier, because you've been there. This part of your perceived reality changed and you survived it -- hopefully thrived though it! -- so you don't see reality as rigid and unchangeable. You see that you don't know everything; even that what which you are certain is true now, you may disbelieve tomorrow. I think this is really important for understanding one another. I can consider other people's truths to be as real as mine because I know that I might believe the way they do in the future, or I may have believed that way in the past.

And thanks to good_news_net, I learned that it was "this day in 1955, [when] seamstress Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery, Ala. bus to a white man and was arrested for violating the city's racial segregation laws." Thank you Rosa for confronting discrimination and becoming a catalyst for change ♥

Words and actions are like clothing; we can express ourselves with them, but they cannot describe the person we are. They can hint, they can shout, but they cannot sum us up. People are simply too complex, and too much of us exists in a place where no one can see actions or hear words. The only label that has any worth is our self-label: the words we choose to dress ourselves in. And even those have no worth until we explain our own meaning for them.

On that note, here are the words I wear: spiritual, creative, honest, open, compassionate, bisexual, polyamorous, partnered, nuevo-gypsy, Georgian, curvy body-positive, fiercely individualistic, feminist/equalist, genderfree female-bodied person. (in no particular order) And my definitions:

spiritual: I don't adhere to any one religion, but believe in whatever resonates with me. The main belief systems I draw from are ancient Egyptian concepts (including aspects of Kemetic Orthodoxy), Native American animism, Christianity, and Buddhism (I don't know much about it but I really love Hotei). I worship God/dess, and have a relationship with several of hir personalities, of Christian and Kemetic names. Ultimately I believe God/dess is love, that the physical world is a metaphor for the spiritual world, and that we chose to come to earth to learn how to love more. I believe everything is connected, all things have a spirit and a name, and there is no such thing as a coincidence.

creative: I am one who creates. I do my best to create love in myself and others, and to pour myself out in my creations: my writing, photography, modeling, beadweaving, painting, dancing, singing -- whatever way I can. I believe that every act of creation ripples out and changes the world (as does destruction, but that in a negative way). Even if no one ever sees my art, I feel I have changed the world simply by creating it (though I think it has even more power when shared).

honest: I do my best to never lie. I think 'little white lies' are like 'little white maggots' that infest connectedness and ruin it. Even one 'little white maggot' in a bowl of soup is going to make you not want to eat it -- I feel the same way about lies. If you can't trust me on something small, how can you trust me with your heart? also, little white maggotlies are usually born from insecurity in the relationship, or lack of willingness to work out all issues. 'I don't want to offend her' or 'I don't want conflict.' Conflict is the best source of growth. I say brrrrring it oooooooon.

open: I will share myself with my friends without prompting, and I will share myself with strangers upon them showing the interest to know. I think every time one person shares themselves with another, that creates more of a connection and ripples out to affect the whole world. To me, honesty is giving truth when it is asked for (passive), and openness is offering your truth (active).

compassionate: My most intense passion in life is to learn, in order to grow, and to grow, in order to love - more deeply, more freely, more openly. I believe love is my purpose for being. The more I love people, the easier it gets, because I come to understand them more, and when you truly understand a person, it's the easiest and most natural thing in the world to love them. I believe that at core we are all amazing, glorious spirits of incalculable worth. We all have a level of brokenness that keeps our spirits from being able to shine as they were meant to, but every act of love ripples out a wave of healing.

bisexual: ( ... )
polyamorous: ( ... )
partnered: ( ... )
nuevo-gypsy, Georgian: ( ... )
curvy body-positive: ( ... )
fiercely individualistic: ( ... )
feminist/equalist: ( ... )
nudist: ( ... )
genderfree female-bodied person: ( ... )

LJ idol topic 0: introduction/open topic (no voting this round!)

Words and actions are like clothing; we can express ourselves with them, but they cannot describe the person we are. They can hint, they can shout, but they cannot sum us up. People are simply too complex, and too much of us exists in a place where no one can see actions or hear words. The only label that has any worth is our self-label: the words we choose to dress ourselves in. And even those have no worth until we explain our own meaning for them.

On that note, here are the words I wear: spiritual, creative, honest, open, compassionate, bisexual, polyamorous, partnered, nuevo-gypsy, Georgian, curvy body-positive, fiercely individualistic, feminist/equalist, genderfree female-bodied person. (in no particular order) And my definitions:

spiritual: I don't adhere to any one religion, but believe in whatever resonates with me. The main belief systems I draw from are ancient Egyptian concepts (including aspects of Kemetic Orthodoxy), Native American animism, Christianity, and Buddhism (I don't know much about it but I really love Hotei). I worship God/dess, and have a relationship with several of hir personalities, of Christian and Kemetic names. Ultimately I believe God/dess is love, that the physical world is a metaphor for the spiritual world, and that we chose to come to earth to learn how to love more. I believe everything is connected, all things have a spirit and a name, and there is no such thing as a coincidence.

creative: I am one who creates. I do my best to create love in myself and others, and to pour myself out in my creations: my writing, photography, modeling, beadweaving, painting, dancing, singing -- whatever way I can. I believe that every act of creation ripples out and changes the world (as does destruction, but that in a negative way). Even if no one ever sees my art, I feel I have changed the world simply by creating it (though I think it has even more power when shared).

honest: I do my best to never lie. I think 'little white lies' are like 'little white maggots' that infest connectedness and ruin it. Even one 'little white maggot' in a bowl of soup is going to make you not want to eat it -- I feel the same way about lies. If you can't trust me on something small, how can you trust me with your heart? also, little white maggotlies are usually born from insecurity in the relationship, or lack of willingness to work out all issues. 'I don't want to offend her' or 'I don't want conflict.' Conflict is the best source of growth. I say brrrrring it oooooooon.

open: I will share myself with my friends without prompting, and I will share myself with strangers upon them showing the interest to know. I think every time one person shares themselves with another, that creates more of a connection and ripples out to affect the whole world. To me, honesty is giving truth when it is asked for (passive), and openness is offering your truth (active).

compassionate: My most intense passion in life is to learn, in order to grow, and to grow, in order to love - more deeply, more freely, more openly. I believe love is my purpose for being. The more I love people, the easier it gets, because I come to understand them more, and when you truly understand a person, it's the easiest and most natural thing in the world to love them. I believe that at core we are all amazing, glorious spirits of incalculable worth. We all have a level of brokenness that keeps our spirits from being able to shine as they were meant to, but every act of love ripples out a wave of healing.

bisexual: ( ... )
polyamorous: ( ... )
partnered: ( ... )
nuevo-gypsy, Georgian: ( ... )
curvy body-positive: ( ... )
fiercely individualistic: ( ... )
feminist/equalist: ( ... )
nudist: ( ... )
genderfree female-bodied person: ( ... )

LJ idol topic 0: introduction/open topic (no voting this round!)

Words and actions are like clothing; we can express ourselves with them, but they cannot describe the person we are. They can hint, they can shout, but they cannot sum us up. People are simply too complex, and too much of us exists in a place where no one can see actions or hear words. The only label that has any worth is our self-label: the words we choose to dress ourselves in. And even those have no worth until we explain our own meaning for them.

On that note, here are the words I wear: spiritual, creative, honest, open, compassionate, bisexual, polyamorous, partnered, nuevo-gypsy, Georgian, curvy body-positive, fiercely individualistic, feminist/equalist, genderfree female-bodied person. (in no particular order) And my definitions:

spiritual: I don't adhere to any one religion, but believe in whatever resonates with me. The main belief systems I draw from are ancient Egyptian concepts (including aspects of Kemetic Orthodoxy), Native American animism, Christianity, and Buddhism (I don't know much about it but I really love Hotei). I worship God/dess, and have a relationship with several of hir personalities, of Christian and Kemetic names. Ultimately I believe God/dess is love, that the physical world is a metaphor for the spiritual world, and that we chose to come to earth to learn how to love more. I believe everything is connected, all things have a spirit and a name, and there is no such thing as a coincidence.

creative: I am one who creates. I do my best to create love in myself and others, and to pour myself out in my creations: my writing, photography, modeling, beadweaving, painting, dancing, singing -- whatever way I can. I believe that every act of creation ripples out and changes the world (as does destruction, but that in a negative way). Even if no one ever sees my art, I feel I have changed the world simply by creating it (though I think it has even more power when shared).

honest: I do my best to never lie. I think 'little white lies' are like 'little white maggots' that infest connectedness and ruin it. Even one 'little white maggot' in a bowl of soup is going to make you not want to eat it -- I feel the same way about lies. If you can't trust me on something small, how can you trust me with your heart? also, little white maggotlies are usually born from insecurity in the relationship, or lack of willingness to work out all issues. 'I don't want to offend her' or 'I don't want conflict.' Conflict is the best source of growth. I say brrrrring it oooooooon.

open: I will share myself with my friends without prompting, and I will share myself with strangers upon them showing the interest to know. I think every time one person shares themselves with another, that creates more of a connection and ripples out to affect the whole world. To me, honesty is giving truth when it is asked for (passive), and openness is offering your truth (active).

compassionate: My most intense passion in life is to learn, in order to grow, and to grow, in order to love - more deeply, more freely, more openly. I believe love is my purpose for being. The more I love people, the easier it gets, because I come to understand them more, and when you truly understand a person, it's the easiest and most natural thing in the world to love them. I believe that at core we are all amazing, glorious spirits of incalculable worth. We all have a level of brokenness that keeps our spirits from being able to shine as they were meant to, but every act of love ripples out a wave of healing.

bisexual: ( ... )
polyamorous: ( ... )
partnered: ( ... )
nuevo-gypsy, Georgian: ( ... )
curvy body-positive: ( ... )
fiercely individualistic: ( ... )
feminist/equalist: ( ... )
nudist: ( ... )
genderfree female-bodied person: ( ... )

LJ idol topic 0: introduction/open topic (no voting this round!)

Who are you? How do you answer that question? How do you define your Self?

A while back I watched Anger Management, and though I thought it went overboard even for an Adam Sandler movie, it had some interesting social insights (which is why I like Adam Sandler movies. You're rolling your eyes most of the time, but occasionally there's something that makes you stop and go "huh! didn't think about that before." Well, it works that way for me anyway).

There's a scene where the psychologist asks Sandler, "Who are you?" and he starts to tell what his job is, and the psych cuts him off and says, "I didn't ask what you do, I asked who you are." Sandler gets more and more confused and frustrated as he is unable to answer that question without talking about what he does; he doesn't know who he is, separate from his actions. This made me wonder -- how would I answer that question?

I've been thinking about it more and more; how identity is separate from actions, yet most people define themselves by their actions. "I'm a (insert career here)" or "I'm a (insert sexuality here)" or "I'm a (insert art/hobby here)." But if I lie, that doesn't make me a liar; if I dance, that doesn't make me a dancer. If I cry a lot, that doesn't make me a depressive; if I often smile and laugh, that doesn't make me a happy person. If I have sex with many people, that doesn't make me a whore; if I refuse to conform in any way, that doesn't make me a freak. I don't believe in stamping people with their actions. What you do is not who you are.

I am a PERSON, and so are you, and actions are an expression of self overlaid by our current level of maturity. The more mature we are, the more our true self shows through our actions -- but unless you are extremely mature, only you (and those practiced in observing you) know when your true self is showing, and even then, it's just a feeling, a sense, an emotion -- nothing concrete. So you can't look at a person and tell who they are by their actions. It takes time and practice to be able to see through the actions to the true self underneath. If you have not invested the time and energy to learn to see a person, you have no right to try to define them with some sloppy label -- and if you have invested, there is no way you would try to define them by their actions.

Of course, this leaves me at a loss when I'm trying to describe a friend. "Oh, she's so amazing, she's just incredible..." and there really aren't any words that will describe a spirit! So I flounder about and try to think of actions that they do that show their true self, and I am left feeling SO dissatisfied, like I have just shown a black & white blurry photo of a sunset. It shows NOTHING of the true self -- that's something you simply have to experience for yourself. I think when Angelina said that she wants to taste everyone in the world, she meant she wanted to taste their spirit. She might have meant it sexually also, but of all people I think she most understands the euphoria of truly seeing the glorious wonder that glows within every single person. Before I die, I too want to taste everyone in the world.

Who are you? How do you answer that question? How do you define your Self?

A while back I watched Anger Management, and though I thought it went overboard even for an Adam Sandler movie, it had some interesting social insights (which is why I like Adam Sandler movies. You're rolling your eyes most of the time, but occasionally there's something that makes you stop and go "huh! didn't think about that before." Well, it works that way for me anyway).

There's a scene where the psychologist asks Sandler, "Who are you?" and he starts to tell what his job is, and the psych cuts him off and says, "I didn't ask what you do, I asked who you are." Sandler gets more and more confused and frustrated as he is unable to answer that question without talking about what he does; he doesn't know who he is, separate from his actions. This made me wonder -- how would I answer that question?

I've been thinking about it more and more; how identity is separate from actions, yet most people define themselves by their actions. "I'm a (insert career here)" or "I'm a (insert sexuality here)" or "I'm a (insert art/hobby here)." But if I lie, that doesn't make me a liar; if I dance, that doesn't make me a dancer. If I cry a lot, that doesn't make me a depressive; if I often smile and laugh, that doesn't make me a happy person. If I have sex with many people, that doesn't make me a whore; if I refuse to conform in any way, that doesn't make me a freak. I don't believe in stamping people with their actions. What you do is not who you are.

I am a PERSON, and so are you, and actions are an expression of self overlaid by our current level of maturity. The more mature we are, the more our true self shows through our actions -- but unless you are extremely mature, only you (and those practiced in observing you) know when your true self is showing, and even then, it's just a feeling, a sense, an emotion -- nothing concrete. So you can't look at a person and tell who they are by their actions. It takes time and practice to be able to see through the actions to the true self underneath. If you have not invested the time and energy to learn to see a person, you have no right to try to define them with some sloppy label -- and if you have invested, there is no way you would try to define them by their actions.

Of course, this leaves me at a loss when I'm trying to describe a friend. "Oh, she's so amazing, she's just incredible..." and there really aren't any words that will describe a spirit! So I flounder about and try to think of actions that they do that show their true self, and I am left feeling SO dissatisfied, like I have just shown a black & white blurry photo of a sunset. It shows NOTHING of the true self -- that's something you simply have to experience for yourself. I think when Angelina said that she wants to taste everyone in the world, she meant she wanted to taste their spirit. She might have meant it sexually also, but of all people I think she most understands the euphoria of truly seeing the glorious wonder that glows within every single person. Before I die, I too want to taste everyone in the world.

Who are you? How do you answer that question? How do you define your Self?

A while back I watched Anger Management, and though I thought it went overboard even for an Adam Sandler movie, it had some interesting social insights (which is why I like Adam Sandler movies. You're rolling your eyes most of the time, but occasionally there's something that makes you stop and go "huh! didn't think about that before." Well, it works that way for me anyway).

There's a scene where the psychologist asks Sandler, "Who are you?" and he starts to tell what his job is, and the psych cuts him off and says, "I didn't ask what you do, I asked who you are." Sandler gets more and more confused and frustrated as he is unable to answer that question without talking about what he does; he doesn't know who he is, separate from his actions. This made me wonder -- how would I answer that question?

I've been thinking about it more and more; how identity is separate from actions, yet most people define themselves by their actions. "I'm a (insert career here)" or "I'm a (insert sexuality here)" or "I'm a (insert art/hobby here)." But if I lie, that doesn't make me a liar; if I dance, that doesn't make me a dancer. If I cry a lot, that doesn't make me a depressive; if I often smile and laugh, that doesn't make me a happy person. If I have sex with many people, that doesn't make me a whore; if I refuse to conform in any way, that doesn't make me a freak. I don't believe in stamping people with their actions. What you do is not who you are.

I am a PERSON, and so are you, and actions are an expression of self overlaid by our current level of maturity. The more mature we are, the more our true self shows through our actions -- but unless you are extremely mature, only you (and those practiced in observing you) know when your true self is showing, and even then, it's just a feeling, a sense, an emotion -- nothing concrete. So you can't look at a person and tell who they are by their actions. It takes time and practice to be able to see through the actions to the true self underneath. If you have not invested the time and energy to learn to see a person, you have no right to try to define them with some sloppy label -- and if you have invested, there is no way you would try to define them by their actions.

Of course, this leaves me at a loss when I'm trying to describe a friend. "Oh, she's so amazing, she's just incredible..." and there really aren't any words that will describe a spirit! So I flounder about and try to think of actions that they do that show their true self, and I am left feeling SO dissatisfied, like I have just shown a black & white blurry photo of a sunset. It shows NOTHING of the true self -- that's something you simply have to experience for yourself. I think when Angelina said that she wants to taste everyone in the world, she meant she wanted to taste their spirit. She might have meant it sexually also, but of all people I think she most understands the euphoria of truly seeing the glorious wonder that glows within every single person. Before I die, I too want to taste everyone in the world.

When I first 'came out,' I self-labeled as queer for two reasons. (the larger reason is something I'll discuss in another post, 'cause it's loooooong) The smaller reason was that 'bisexual' seemed too limiting, seemed to lend itself to assumptions that would be untrue. My feelings about labels have changed since then.

Labels are useful. I never understood hating them -- they're just adjectives, they don't actually define you. They're great as a jumping-off point for understanding, which is their purpose. They only become a problem when people stop there -- when people don't go further, ask more questions and discover what that label means to the specific person using it. Because labels have no real meaning until explained. To one person, lesbian means "have only ever been attracted to women, only ever slept with women, and only will ever sleep with women." To another, it simply means "woman who only wants to sleep with women from here on out" and to yet another, it means "more attracted to women than men." I knew a woman who was married to a man, had never had sex with women and intended to only have sex with her husband for the rest of her life, but she identified as lesbian. If I knew nothing of her life and heard that she identified as lesbian, I might make assumptions that would be quite wrong -- which is why one should always ask more questions after hearing someone's self-label.

So that is why I have decided to identify as 'bisexual' -- yes, people may make assumptions, but that is their failing, not mine. I want to label myself as bisexual because that seems the most honest category for me, and because I want to help change the erroneous view many have of bisexuals. I am also queer, but to me that is a broader category meaning "not straight," and it simply doesn't say enough for me to be satisfied.

I would love if you'd please respond to this post with your sexual/relational self-label and what it means to you. Comments are screened but will be unscreened unless you ask for them to stay screened.

When I first 'came out,' I self-labeled as queer for two reasons. (the larger reason is something I'll discuss in another post, 'cause it's loooooong) The smaller reason was that 'bisexual' seemed too limiting, seemed to lend itself to assumptions that would be untrue. My feelings about labels have changed since then.

Labels are useful. I never understood hating them -- they're just adjectives, they don't actually define you. They're great as a jumping-off point for understanding, which is their purpose. They only become a problem when people stop there -- when people don't go further, ask more questions and discover what that label means to the specific person using it. Because labels have no real meaning until explained. To one person, lesbian means "have only ever been attracted to women, only ever slept with women, and only will ever sleep with women." To another, it simply means "woman who only wants to sleep with women from here on out" and to yet another, it means "more attracted to women than men." I knew a woman who was married to a man, had never had sex with women and intended to only have sex with her husband for the rest of her life, but she identified as lesbian. If I knew nothing of her life and heard that she identified as lesbian, I might make assumptions that would be quite wrong -- which is why one should always ask more questions after hearing someone's self-label.

So that is why I have decided to identify as 'bisexual' -- yes, people may make assumptions, but that is their failing, not mine. I want to label myself as bisexual because that seems the most honest category for me, and because I want to help change the erroneous view many have of bisexuals. I am also queer, but to me that is a broader category meaning "not straight," and it simply doesn't say enough for me to be satisfied.

I would love if you'd please respond to this post with your sexual/relational self-label and what it means to you. Comments are screened but will be unscreened unless you ask for them to stay screened.

When I first 'came out,' I self-labeled as queer for two reasons. (the larger reason is something I'll discuss in another post, 'cause it's loooooong) The smaller reason was that 'bisexual' seemed too limiting, seemed to lend itself to assumptions that would be untrue. My feelings about labels have changed since then.

Labels are useful. I never understood hating them -- they're just adjectives, they don't actually define you. They're great as a jumping-off point for understanding, which is their purpose. They only become a problem when people stop there -- when people don't go further, ask more questions and discover what that label means to the specific person using it. Because labels have no real meaning until explained. To one person, lesbian means "have only ever been attracted to women, only ever slept with women, and only will ever sleep with women." To another, it simply means "woman who only wants to sleep with women from here on out" and to yet another, it means "more attracted to women than men." I knew a woman who was married to a man, had never had sex with women and intended to only have sex with her husband for the rest of her life, but she identified as lesbian. If I knew nothing of her life and heard that she identified as lesbian, I might make assumptions that would be quite wrong -- which is why one should always ask more questions after hearing someone's self-label.

So that is why I have decided to identify as 'bisexual' -- yes, people may make assumptions, but that is their failing, not mine. I want to label myself as bisexual because that seems the most honest category for me, and because I want to help change the erroneous view many have of bisexuals. I am also queer, but to me that is a broader category meaning "not straight," and it simply doesn't say enough for me to be satisfied.

I would love if you'd please respond to this post with your sexual/relational self-label and what it means to you. Comments are screened but will be unscreened unless you ask for them to stay screened.

"Bisexuality is real" -- a statement I've seen with an accompanying colorbar in quite a few profiles. But many people don't believe that -- or, more to the point, don't believe that bisexuality is a stable and legitimate sexual preference. It is seen as transitory/false/fickle, because we live in an exclusionist society that declares that all people must be either/or -- gay OR straight (bad or good!). This means, for the many people who are not 100% same-sex or opposite-sex oriented, whichever feelings are: a) less strong or b) less socially acceptable (by whatever culture you're in) are therefore considered illegitimate, not real. People 'experiment' with the same sex in college and then after graduating settle into heterosexual life, but instead of allowing for the possibility that those people are bisexuals with stronger opposite-sex than same-sex feelings (or a desire to stay in the closet), they are categorized as straight. Their feelings and experiences are considered illegitimate, unreal, meaningless, because they MUST fit into one category or the other, based on whom they are currently/most recently in a relationship with. I think many people explore their bisexuality in college ((18% of college men say they've kissed another man, and 20% of college women say they've kissed another woman)) because it is (more) socially acceptable then, but later leave it behind to fit into a monosexual lifestyle because they feel they must choose one or the other.

One thing I keep seeing in tv/films which INFURIATES me is this: person discovers they have sexual/romantic feelings for the same sex, and immediately ASSUMES that they are gay, completely illegitimatizing their feelings for the opposite sex!!! (now if they mentioned a lack of feeling for the opposite sex, that would make sense, but that's never part of it!) THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!!! This assumption is extremely discriminatory, either/or, us/them, exclusionist. Feelings for one sex simply mean you have feelings for that sex, they do NOT mean all feelings for the other sex are therefore invalid and fake. And the assumption always goes the same way -- one drop of queerness makes you gay! Straight has to be pure, untainted. Sounds a little prejudiced, doesn't it? but it is an assumption made across the board, by all sexualities. Assuming people are either gay or straight is just as bad as assuming that all people are straight.

It's not just in the media either -- I've seen so many people say "I've discovered I have feelings for the same sex... I think I'm gay." (because bisexual is not an option? doesn't exist?) or "I would love to be [with women], but I love the cock too much." (I'm so not kidding, that is nearly a direct quote -- what she actually said was 'gay.' (also, hello? dildos?)) Liking penis and liking vulva are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. (It's fine to like exclusively one or the other, of course, but liking both is ALSO a possibility)

Bisexuality is considered politically unimportant by some, because bisexuals blend into whichever monosexual group they fit into with their current lover -- they aren't visible. However, this is the very reason they are of utmost importance. Bisexuals bridge the gap between straight and gay -- they bring to awareness that we are all the same, we are all just people. Bisexuality makes many people uncomfortably aware of the fact that there is no strict dividing line between gay and straight -- you can be both at once. There aren't purebloods and mudbloods -- bisexuality throws out the either/or, throws out the rationale for us/them mentality. How can you discriminate if you don't know who's who? Heterosexism is essentially based on appearances, and since bisexuality makes appearances completely irrelevant, heterosexism relies on the belief that bisexuality doesn't exist.

If a heterosexist person sees two girls kissing, ze is disapproving, but if ze sees a girl and guy kissing, ze is approving. However, if that person believed in bisexuality, ze would not be able to dis/approve based on simple appearances, because that opposite-sex couple could easily both be queers. (Or, for that matter, one of the same-sex couple could actually be a 'feminine' guy and therefore marginally 'approvable') If ze was the boss of a man who had been happily married to a woman for 20 years and had four kids, ze could not assume he was straight (if ze believed in bisexuality). Or if ze had sex with someone of the opposite sex, ze could not assume that that person was straight, and knowing that the person you're sleeping with could be queer makes it a hell of a lot harder to discriminate against queers. Also, if ze believed in bisexuality and ever had ANY feelings for the same sex, ze could not dismiss those feelings as illegitimate or unimportant, and could not so easily discriminate against others who act upon those feelings.

Until bisexuality is recognized as a stable and legitimate sexual preference, discrimination against all sexualities will continue. There are other factors of course, but I believe this is a major factor.

I've made my own colorbar: feel free to use if you wish.

Bisexuality is a stable and legitimate sexual orientation.

<center><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="50%"><tbody><tr><td bgcolor="#E545C8" width="10%"> </td><td bgcolor="#B727EE" width="20%"> </td><td bgcolor="#6F00FF" width="40%"> </td><td bgcolor="#6933FF" width="20%"> </td><td bgcolor="#3B3BFF" width="10%"> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="5" align="center"><a href="http://belenen.livejournal.com/348769.html">Bisexuality is a stable and legitimate sexual orientation.</a></td></tr></tbody></table></center>

"Bisexuality is real" -- a statement I've seen with an accompanying colorbar in quite a few profiles. But many people don't believe that -- or, more to the point, don't believe that bisexuality is a stable and legitimate sexual preference. It is seen as transitory/false/fickle, because we live in an exclusionist society that declares that all people must be either/or -- gay OR straight (bad or good!). This means, for the many people who are not 100% same-sex or opposite-sex oriented, whichever feelings are: a) less strong or b) less socially acceptable (by whatever culture you're in) are therefore considered illegitimate, not real. People 'experiment' with the same sex in college and then after graduating settle into heterosexual life, but instead of allowing for the possibility that those people are bisexuals with stronger opposite-sex than same-sex feelings (or a desire to stay in the closet), they are categorized as straight. Their feelings and experiences are considered illegitimate, unreal, meaningless, because they MUST fit into one category or the other, based on whom they are currently/most recently in a relationship with. I think many people explore their bisexuality in college ((18% of college men say they've kissed another man, and 20% of college women say they've kissed another woman)) because it is (more) socially acceptable then, but later leave it behind to fit into a monosexual lifestyle because they feel they must choose one or the other.

One thing I keep seeing in tv/films which INFURIATES me is this: person discovers they have sexual/romantic feelings for the same sex, and immediately ASSUMES that they are gay, completely illegitimatizing their feelings for the opposite sex!!! (now if they mentioned a lack of feeling for the opposite sex, that would make sense, but that's never part of it!) THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!!! This assumption is extremely discriminatory, either/or, us/them, exclusionist. Feelings for one sex simply mean you have feelings for that sex, they do NOT mean all feelings for the other sex are therefore invalid and fake. And the assumption always goes the same way -- one drop of queerness makes you gay! Straight has to be pure, untainted. Sounds a little prejudiced, doesn't it? but it is an assumption made across the board, by all sexualities. Assuming people are either gay or straight is just as bad as assuming that all people are straight.

It's not just in the media either -- I've seen so many people say "I've discovered I have feelings for the same sex... I think I'm gay." (because bisexual is not an option? doesn't exist?) or "I would love to be [with women], but I love the cock too much." (I'm so not kidding, that is nearly a direct quote -- what she actually said was 'gay.' (also, hello? dildos?)) Liking penis and liking vulva are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. (It's fine to like exclusively one or the other, of course, but liking both is ALSO a possibility)

Bisexuality is considered politically unimportant by some, because bisexuals blend into whichever monosexual group they fit into with their current lover -- they aren't visible. However, this is the very reason they are of utmost importance. Bisexuals bridge the gap between straight and gay -- they bring to awareness that we are all the same, we are all just people. Bisexuality makes many people uncomfortably aware of the fact that there is no strict dividing line between gay and straight -- you can be both at once. There aren't purebloods and mudbloods -- bisexuality throws out the either/or, throws out the rationale for us/them mentality. How can you discriminate if you don't know who's who? Heterosexism is essentially based on appearances, and since bisexuality makes appearances completely irrelevant, heterosexism relies on the belief that bisexuality doesn't exist.

If a heterosexist person sees two girls kissing, ze is disapproving, but if ze sees a girl and guy kissing, ze is approving. However, if that person believed in bisexuality, ze would not be able to dis/approve based on simple appearances, because that opposite-sex couple could easily both be queers. (Or, for that matter, one of the same-sex couple could actually be a 'feminine' guy and therefore marginally 'approvable') If ze was the boss of a man who had been happily married to a woman for 20 years and had four kids, ze could not assume he was straight (if ze believed in bisexuality). Or if ze had sex with someone of the opposite sex, ze could not assume that that person was straight, and knowing that the person you're sleeping with could be queer makes it a hell of a lot harder to discriminate against queers. Also, if ze believed in bisexuality and ever had ANY feelings for the same sex, ze could not dismiss those feelings as illegitimate or unimportant, and could not so easily discriminate against others who act upon those feelings.

Until bisexuality is recognized as a stable and legitimate sexual preference, discrimination against all sexualities will continue. There are other factors of course, but I believe this is a major factor.

I've made my own colorbar: feel free to use if you wish.

Bisexuality is a stable and legitimate sexual orientation.

<center><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="50%"><tbody><tr><td bgcolor="#E545C8" width="10%"> </td><td bgcolor="#B727EE" width="20%"> </td><td bgcolor="#6F00FF" width="40%"> </td><td bgcolor="#6933FF" width="20%"> </td><td bgcolor="#3B3BFF" width="10%"> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="5" align="center"><a href="http://belenen.livejournal.com/348769.html">Bisexuality is a stable and legitimate sexual orientation.</a></td></tr></tbody></table></center>

"Bisexuality is real" -- a statement I've seen with an accompanying colorbar in quite a few profiles. But many people don't believe that -- or, more to the point, don't believe that bisexuality is a stable and legitimate sexual preference. It is seen as transitory/false/fickle, because we live in an exclusionist society that declares that all people must be either/or -- gay OR straight (bad or good!). This means, for the many people who are not 100% same-sex or opposite-sex oriented, whichever feelings are: a) less strong or b) less socially acceptable (by whatever culture you're in) are therefore considered illegitimate, not real. People 'experiment' with the same sex in college and then after graduating settle into heterosexual life, but instead of allowing for the possibility that those people are bisexuals with stronger opposite-sex than same-sex feelings (or a desire to stay in the closet), they are categorized as straight. Their feelings and experiences are considered illegitimate, unreal, meaningless, because they MUST fit into one category or the other, based on whom they are currently/most recently in a relationship with. I think many people explore their bisexuality in college ((18% of college men say they've kissed another man, and 20% of college women say they've kissed another woman)) because it is (more) socially acceptable then, but later leave it behind to fit into a monosexual lifestyle because they feel they must choose one or the other.

One thing I keep seeing in tv/films which INFURIATES me is this: person discovers they have sexual/romantic feelings for the same sex, and immediately ASSUMES that they are gay, completely illegitimatizing their feelings for the opposite sex!!! (now if they mentioned a lack of feeling for the opposite sex, that would make sense, but that's never part of it!) THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!!! This assumption is extremely discriminatory, either/or, us/them, exclusionist. Feelings for one sex simply mean you have feelings for that sex, they do NOT mean all feelings for the other sex are therefore invalid and fake. And the assumption always goes the same way -- one drop of queerness makes you gay! Straight has to be pure, untainted. Sounds a little prejudiced, doesn't it? but it is an assumption made across the board, by all sexualities. Assuming people are either gay or straight is just as bad as assuming that all people are straight.

It's not just in the media either -- I've seen so many people say "I've discovered I have feelings for the same sex... I think I'm gay." (because bisexual is not an option? doesn't exist?) or "I would love to be [with women], but I love the cock too much." (I'm so not kidding, that is nearly a direct quote -- what she actually said was 'gay.' (also, hello? dildos?)) Liking penis and liking vulva are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. (It's fine to like exclusively one or the other, of course, but liking both is ALSO a possibility)

Bisexuality is considered politically unimportant by some, because bisexuals blend into whichever monosexual group they fit into with their current lover -- they aren't visible. However, this is the very reason they are of utmost importance. Bisexuals bridge the gap between straight and gay -- they bring to awareness that we are all the same, we are all just people. Bisexuality makes many people uncomfortably aware of the fact that there is no strict dividing line between gay and straight -- you can be both at once. There aren't purebloods and mudbloods -- bisexuality throws out the either/or, throws out the rationale for us/them mentality. How can you discriminate if you don't know who's who? Heterosexism is essentially based on appearances, and since bisexuality makes appearances completely irrelevant, heterosexism relies on the belief that bisexuality doesn't exist.

If a heterosexist person sees two girls kissing, ze is disapproving, but if ze sees a girl and guy kissing, ze is approving. However, if that person believed in bisexuality, ze would not be able to dis/approve based on simple appearances, because that opposite-sex couple could easily both be queers. (Or, for that matter, one of the same-sex couple could actually be a 'feminine' guy and therefore marginally 'approvable') If ze was the boss of a man who had been happily married to a woman for 20 years and had four kids, ze could not assume he was straight (if ze believed in bisexuality). Or if ze had sex with someone of the opposite sex, ze could not assume that that person was straight, and knowing that the person you're sleeping with could be queer makes it a hell of a lot harder to discriminate against queers. Also, if ze believed in bisexuality and ever had ANY feelings for the same sex, ze could not dismiss those feelings as illegitimate or unimportant, and could not so easily discriminate against others who act upon those feelings.

Until bisexuality is recognized as a stable and legitimate sexual preference, discrimination against all sexualities will continue. There are other factors of course, but I believe this is a major factor.

I've made my own colorbar: feel free to use if you wish.

Bisexuality is a stable and legitimate sexual orientation.

<center><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="50%"><tbody><tr><td bgcolor="#E545C8" width="10%"> </td><td bgcolor="#B727EE" width="20%"> </td><td bgcolor="#6F00FF" width="40%"> </td><td bgcolor="#6933FF" width="20%"> </td><td bgcolor="#3B3BFF" width="10%"> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="5" align="center"><a href="http://belenen.livejournal.com/348769.html">Bisexuality is a stable and legitimate sexual orientation.</a></td></tr></tbody></table></center>

Love and affection are generally understood to be synonyms, differing only in degree. But I see them differently. Love, to me, is a spirit commitment without logic, something that cannot be explained or defined. You love someone just because you do, simple as that -- it cannot be controlled or directed because it has no method. On a subconscious level, I think that love is essentially a recognition of our interconnectedness -- something about that other person reminds you that you have a bond, that you are not alone. For whatever reason, some people remind you of that more than others do, so you feel this bond very strongly with some and not at all with others. It's like we're puzzle pieces -- some of us fit side-by-side, others fit one piece away, and others are far on the other side of the puzzle, but we're all part of the same whole, and love is the force that reminds us of that. People can treat us horribly, but if they are our side-by-side puzzle piece, we are still going to love them.

Affection is different -- it is completely controllable and directable. Affection is a positive feeling that someone else creates in you. If someone does something nice for/to you, that creates affection in you, and if they do something that gives you negative feelings, that destroys the affection they've created in you. You cannot create true affection for someone else within yourself, although you can pretend that it is there when it is not. And you cannot always create affection in someone else, because if they like, they can block it out. The only way affection can be created is if one person creates it in another, who allows them to do so.

A healthy deep relationship needs both love and affection. Love, which motivates us to create the relationship in the first place, and motivates us to work through the low-affection times. And affection, to fuel the relationship and nourish both people. A relationship can continue for a time with an imbalance of affection, but that imbalance itself is an affection-destroyer, so if left unchecked it will eventually bring the relationship to a halt.

In my relationship with my partner, we've always had love for each other, but affection has waxed and waned. For the first year of our marriage, I created a TON of affection in zir, and ze created some in me. The second year, I was going through intense counseling for the sexual abuse I went through as a child, and I had little to no energy to spend on him, so that year ze created affection in me and I did not create it in zir. But ze had so much left from the year before that it carried zir through (though it was draining on both of us). Then the third year I began creating affection in zir again, but ze stopped, for the most part. The affection ze had created in me slowly dwindled over that year until this January, I had completely run out, and I felt no affection for zir at all. That terrified me because I thought affection and love were the same thing, and I thought that it would be a permanent state -- but ze convinced me it wouldn't be permanent, and we began making changes. After a ton of work removing all kinds of problems that destroyed affection, we began to create affection in each other again and now I feel more affectionate toward zir than I ever have before. And I feel more confident in it because we have conquered so many affection-destroying habits. Nowadays, we're pretty good at creating affection and keeping it! Which allows us to realize love on deeper and deeper levels. ♥

I realize all of this might sound a little too... structured. I don't see love or affection as an equation, I assure you! It is still inexplicable magic to me at the same time. ;-)

Love and affection are generally understood to be synonyms, differing only in degree. But I see them differently. Love, to me, is a spirit commitment without logic, something that cannot be explained or defined. You love someone just because you do, simple as that -- it cannot be controlled or directed because it has no method. On a subconscious level, I think that love is essentially a recognition of our interconnectedness -- something about that other person reminds you that you have a bond, that you are not alone. For whatever reason, some people remind you of that more than others do, so you feel this bond very strongly with some and not at all with others. It's like we're puzzle pieces -- some of us fit side-by-side, others fit one piece away, and others are far on the other side of the puzzle, but we're all part of the same whole, and love is the force that reminds us of that. People can treat us horribly, but if they are our side-by-side puzzle piece, we are still going to love them.

Affection is different -- it is completely controllable and directable. Affection is a positive feeling that someone else creates in you. If someone does something nice for/to you, that creates affection in you, and if they do something that gives you negative feelings, that destroys the affection they've created in you. You cannot create true affection for someone else within yourself, although you can pretend that it is there when it is not. And you cannot always create affection in someone else, because if they like, they can block it out. The only way affection can be created is if one person creates it in another, who allows them to do so.

A healthy deep relationship needs both love and affection. Love, which motivates us to create the relationship in the first place, and motivates us to work through the low-affection times. And affection, to fuel the relationship and nourish both people. A relationship can continue for a time with an imbalance of affection, but that imbalance itself is an affection-destroyer, so if left unchecked it will eventually bring the relationship to a halt.

In my relationship with my partner, we've always had love for each other, but affection has waxed and waned. For the first year of our marriage, I created a TON of affection in zir, and ze created some in me. The second year, I was going through intense counseling for the sexual abuse I went through as a child, and I had little to no energy to spend on him, so that year ze created affection in me and I did not create it in zir. But ze had so much left from the year before that it carried zir through (though it was draining on both of us). Then the third year I began creating affection in zir again, but ze stopped, for the most part. The affection ze had created in me slowly dwindled over that year until this January, I had completely run out, and I felt no affection for zir at all. That terrified me because I thought affection and love were the same thing, and I thought that it would be a permanent state -- but ze convinced me it wouldn't be permanent, and we began making changes. After a ton of work removing all kinds of problems that destroyed affection, we began to create affection in each other again and now I feel more affectionate toward zir than I ever have before. And I feel more confident in it because we have conquered so many affection-destroying habits. Nowadays, we're pretty good at creating affection and keeping it! Which allows us to realize love on deeper and deeper levels. ♥

I realize all of this might sound a little too... structured. I don't see love or affection as an equation, I assure you! It is still inexplicable magic to me at the same time. ;-)

Love and affection are generally understood to be synonyms, differing only in degree. But I see them differently. Love, to me, is a spirit commitment without logic, something that cannot be explained or defined. You love someone just because you do, simple as that -- it cannot be controlled or directed because it has no method. On a subconscious level, I think that love is essentially a recognition of our interconnectedness -- something about that other person reminds you that you have a bond, that you are not alone. For whatever reason, some people remind you of that more than others do, so you feel this bond very strongly with some and not at all with others. It's like we're puzzle pieces -- some of us fit side-by-side, others fit one piece away, and others are far on the other side of the puzzle, but we're all part of the same whole, and love is the force that reminds us of that. People can treat us horribly, but if they are our side-by-side puzzle piece, we are still going to love them.

Affection is different -- it is completely controllable and directable. Affection is a positive feeling that someone else creates in you. If someone does something nice for/to you, that creates affection in you, and if they do something that gives you negative feelings, that destroys the affection they've created in you. You cannot create true affection for someone else within yourself, although you can pretend that it is there when it is not. And you cannot always create affection in someone else, because if they like, they can block it out. The only way affection can be created is if one person creates it in another, who allows them to do so.

A healthy deep relationship needs both love and affection. Love, which motivates us to create the relationship in the first place, and motivates us to work through the low-affection times. And affection, to fuel the relationship and nourish both people. A relationship can continue for a time with an imbalance of affection, but that imbalance itself is an affection-destroyer, so if left unchecked it will eventually bring the relationship to a halt.

In my relationship with my partner, we've always had love for each other, but affection has waxed and waned. For the first year of our marriage, I created a TON of affection in zir, and ze created some in me. The second year, I was going through intense counseling for the sexual abuse I went through as a child, and I had little to no energy to spend on him, so that year ze created affection in me and I did not create it in zir. But ze had so much left from the year before that it carried zir through (though it was draining on both of us). Then the third year I began creating affection in zir again, but ze stopped, for the most part. The affection ze had created in me slowly dwindled over that year until this January, I had completely run out, and I felt no affection for zir at all. That terrified me because I thought affection and love were the same thing, and I thought that it would be a permanent state -- but ze convinced me it wouldn't be permanent, and we began making changes. After a ton of work removing all kinds of problems that destroyed affection, we began to create affection in each other again and now I feel more affectionate toward zir than I ever have before. And I feel more confident in it because we have conquered so many affection-destroying habits. Nowadays, we're pretty good at creating affection and keeping it! Which allows us to realize love on deeper and deeper levels. ♥

I realize all of this might sound a little too... structured. I don't see love or affection as an equation, I assure you! It is still inexplicable magic to me at the same time. ;-)

( ... ) She heavily implied that analysing got in the way of really living -- whereas I believe that "the unexamined life is not worth living." Not to confuse caution with analysing -- I think the best time to analyse is AFTER you do a thing. I'm a fan of making mistakes, but only making them once (hopefully). I'd rather go with my instinct and make a mess than miss an opportunity. I think you can only be 'too' analytical if you don't immerse yourself in experience because you are too busy looking in from the outside. I definitely immerse myself in experience. and then afterwards I analyse it. like now! ;-)

In school, you don't learn something and then move on -- you learn, review, and move on. If you skip the review, you're not likely to remember, or use what you learned. The way I see it is, our minds are storage places. When you come across new information, it is randomly tossed into the mindspace. By analysing, you take this knowledge and reshape it into a configuration that fits best in your particular mindspace. Only then can you use it to its fullest potential. It can still be used in its original shape, but it cannot be easily built upon.

Another way of putting it is to say that when someone gives you knowledge, it is their knowledge, designed to fit into their mindspace (unless it is regurgitated; then you have no idea whose mindspace it fits, which is a little scary if you think about it!). It only becomes yours when you break it down and reshape it to fit in YOUR mindspace. People can tell me all day long that drinking water is good for me, but it remains their knowledge until I reshape it into mine (in this example, by experiencing the difference between good and poor hydration). Because of this way of thinking, I never take anyone's words to be truth for me -- they may be verrrrrry similar but they will have slight differences that will create instability in my thoughts if I do not first reshape them to fit my mindspace. There's only one side of difference between a rectangle and a pentagon, but they don't fit together in a pattern very easily.

( ... ) She heavily implied that analysing got in the way of really living -- whereas I believe that "the unexamined life is not worth living." Not to confuse caution with analysing -- I think the best time to analyse is AFTER you do a thing. I'm a fan of making mistakes, but only making them once (hopefully). I'd rather go with my instinct and make a mess than miss an opportunity. I think you can only be 'too' analytical if you don't immerse yourself in experience because you are too busy looking in from the outside. I definitely immerse myself in experience. and then afterwards I analyse it. like now! ;-)

In school, you don't learn something and then move on -- you learn, review, and move on. If you skip the review, you're not likely to remember, or use what you learned. The way I see it is, our minds are storage places. When you come across new information, it is randomly tossed into the mindspace. By analysing, you take this knowledge and reshape it into a configuration that fits best in your particular mindspace. Only then can you use it to its fullest potential. It can still be used in its original shape, but it cannot be easily built upon.

Another way of putting it is to say that when someone gives you knowledge, it is their knowledge, designed to fit into their mindspace (unless it is regurgitated; then you have no idea whose mindspace it fits, which is a little scary if you think about it!). It only becomes yours when you break it down and reshape it to fit in YOUR mindspace. People can tell me all day long that drinking water is good for me, but it remains their knowledge until I reshape it into mine (in this example, by experiencing the difference between good and poor hydration). Because of this way of thinking, I never take anyone's words to be truth for me -- they may be verrrrrry similar but they will have slight differences that will create instability in my thoughts if I do not first reshape them to fit my mindspace. There's only one side of difference between a rectangle and a pentagon, but they don't fit together in a pattern very easily.

( ... ) She heavily implied that analysing got in the way of really living -- whereas I believe that "the unexamined life is not worth living." Not to confuse caution with analysing -- I think the best time to analyse is AFTER you do a thing. I'm a fan of making mistakes, but only making them once (hopefully). I'd rather go with my instinct and make a mess than miss an opportunity. I think you can only be 'too' analytical if you don't immerse yourself in experience because you are too busy looking in from the outside. I definitely immerse myself in experience. and then afterwards I analyse it. like now! ;-)

In school, you don't learn something and then move on -- you learn, review, and move on. If you skip the review, you're not likely to remember, or use what you learned. The way I see it is, our minds are storage places. When you come across new information, it is randomly tossed into the mindspace. By analysing, you take this knowledge and reshape it into a configuration that fits best in your particular mindspace. Only then can you use it to its fullest potential. It can still be used in its original shape, but it cannot be easily built upon.

Another way of putting it is to say that when someone gives you knowledge, it is their knowledge, designed to fit into their mindspace (unless it is regurgitated; then you have no idea whose mindspace it fits, which is a little scary if you think about it!). It only becomes yours when you break it down and reshape it to fit in YOUR mindspace. People can tell me all day long that drinking water is good for me, but it remains their knowledge until I reshape it into mine (in this example, by experiencing the difference between good and poor hydration). Because of this way of thinking, I never take anyone's words to be truth for me -- they may be verrrrrry similar but they will have slight differences that will create instability in my thoughts if I do not first reshape them to fit my mindspace. There's only one side of difference between a rectangle and a pentagon, but they don't fit together in a pattern very easily.

disclaimer: this is true FOR ME: I'm not saying it is universal truth.

Note: I've changed my philosophies since this post

I'm polyamorous; that has different meanings for different people, so I will define it for me. To me, polyamory is a philosophy that involves being open to more than one committed, sexual relationship. For me, it does not include casual sex, though it may include sex with deep friends who are not romantically involved with me (that is an aspect I am undecided on, for now).

I believe healthy sex is a human-to-human expression of emotional and spiritual intimacy. I believe that every time you have sex with someone, there is a spiritual exchange -- you get a tiny piece of their spirit, and they get a tiny part of yours. The more you have sex with them, the more you exchange. I do think that over time, your given-away-parts come back to you (and you can do spiritual work to make them come back faster), but it takes a while -- the length of time depends on how many times you had sex with them, and how intense each experience was. For this reason I believe casual sex is very unhealthy, because you're accepting parts of people who may be bad for you, and you're giving away a part of you that they may not be worthy of. I define casual sex as: sex with people whom you do not know well and/or do not love. I feel that you need to know them in order to judge if they are good for you, and you need to love them because sex is a sacred act and needs the presence of love so that both partners are treated with full respect and honor. So I would only have sex with someone I mutually knew well, loved, and was reasonably sure that they'd be in my life for a long time (in order to keep the parts of my spirit in my life until such time as I wanted to call them back). And for now, at least, they'd also have to be soulfriends with me, because I would need to have that level of intimacy and trust. There are many many people I find attractive, but even though they might make me flush or make my heart beat fast, if they don't also stir my spirit, I don't want to have sex with them.

So why would I want more than one partner? Partly, for balance -- I feel like (for ME) a two-person relationship is wobbly -- like if you had two pegs connected by a wire, they'd be pretty easily pushed over. But if you have three pegs, connected in a triangle, it's not as easy for them to fall. As the Bible says (haha!) "A cord of three strands is not quickly broken." Because in a relationship of two, if one person is weakened, the other has no support -- in a relationship of three, it is far more likely that there will be at least one person strong enough to support at any given time. But even though a triad would be my 'ideal' relationship shape, I'm open to a 'V,' where I have two partners who are not involved with each other (as long as they were open to attempting soulfriendship with each other). Or other configurations, of course.

Another reason is simply the fact that I've never so much as held hands with anyone except my partner. (not to mention kissing!) And I didn't know my own sexuality until years after I married my partner, so I never explored that either. I know that if I had learned it earlier, I would probably have thought myself a lesbian, because my partner's the only man I've ever met that I would marry, I'm pretty sure. I don't regret it one tiny bit -- I wouldn't be the person I am if I hadn't followed the path I did -- but experiencing a romantic and sexual relationship with a woman is something that is very important to me. Also, I do not like the concept of restricting myself romantically/sexually to one person, because it makes me feel 'owned' -- I know this is not something everyone feels, but it's true for me. I want to decide based on what is right for me (I feel that what is truly right for the individual is right for the group). And I think that I would grow immensely from a second sexually intimate relationship, because she would share the experience of being a woman and we would connect in a totally different way, and because it would involve challenging the accepted paradigms. Most of all, there is a place in my heart that is waiting for her. ♥ (I'm not completely closed to the idea of another man in my life, but I don't actively desire it)

( discussing it with my partner, why now )

disclaimer: this is true FOR ME: I'm not saying it is universal truth.

Note: I've changed my philosophies since this post

I'm polyamorous; that has different meanings for different people, so I will define it for me. To me, polyamory is a philosophy that involves being open to more than one committed, sexual relationship. For me, it does not include casual sex, though it may include sex with deep friends who are not romantically involved with me (that is an aspect I am undecided on, for now).

I believe healthy sex is a human-to-human expression of emotional and spiritual intimacy. I believe that every time you have sex with someone, there is a spiritual exchange -- you get a tiny piece of their spirit, and they get a tiny part of yours. The more you have sex with them, the more you exchange. I do think that over time, your given-away-parts come back to you (and you can do spiritual work to make them come back faster), but it takes a while -- the length of time depends on how many times you had sex with them, and how intense each experience was. For this reason I believe casual sex is very unhealthy, because you're accepting parts of people who may be bad for you, and you're giving away a part of you that they may not be worthy of. I define casual sex as: sex with people whom you do not know well and/or do not love. I feel that you need to know them in order to judge if they are good for you, and you need to love them because sex is a sacred act and needs the presence of love so that both partners are treated with full respect and honor. So I would only have sex with someone I mutually knew well, loved, and was reasonably sure that they'd be in my life for a long time (in order to keep the parts of my spirit in my life until such time as I wanted to call them back). And for now, at least, they'd also have to be soulfriends with me, because I would need to have that level of intimacy and trust. There are many many people I find attractive, but even though they might make me flush or make my heart beat fast, if they don't also stir my spirit, I don't want to have sex with them.

So why would I want more than one partner? Partly, for balance -- I feel like (for ME) a two-person relationship is wobbly -- like if you had two pegs connected by a wire, they'd be pretty easily pushed over. But if you have three pegs, connected in a triangle, it's not as easy for them to fall. As the Bible says (haha!) "A cord of three strands is not quickly broken." Because in a relationship of two, if one person is weakened, the other has no support -- in a relationship of three, it is far more likely that there will be at least one person strong enough to support at any given time. But even though a triad would be my 'ideal' relationship shape, I'm open to a 'V,' where I have two partners who are not involved with each other (as long as they were open to attempting soulfriendship with each other). Or other configurations, of course.

Another reason is simply the fact that I've never so much as held hands with anyone except my partner. (not to mention kissing!) And I didn't know my own sexuality until years after I married my partner, so I never explored that either. I know that if I had learned it earlier, I would probably have thought myself a lesbian, because my partner's the only man I've ever met that I would marry, I'm pretty sure. I don't regret it one tiny bit -- I wouldn't be the person I am if I hadn't followed the path I did -- but experiencing a romantic and sexual relationship with a woman is something that is very important to me. Also, I do not like the concept of restricting myself romantically/sexually to one person, because it makes me feel 'owned' -- I know this is not something everyone feels, but it's true for me. I want to decide based on what is right for me (I feel that what is truly right for the individual is right for the group). And I think that I would grow immensely from a second sexually intimate relationship, because she would share the experience of being a woman and we would connect in a totally different way, and because it would involve challenging the accepted paradigms. Most of all, there is a place in my heart that is waiting for her. ♥ (I'm not completely closed to the idea of another man in my life, but I don't actively desire it)

( discussing it with my partner, why now )

disclaimer: this is true FOR ME: I'm not saying it is universal truth.

I'm polyamorous; that has different meanings for different people, so I will define it for me. To me, polyamory is a philosophy that involves being open to more than one committed, sexual relationship. For me, it does not include casual sex, though it may include sex with deep friends who are not romantically involved with me (that is an aspect I am undecided on, for now).

I believe healthy sex is a human-to-human expression of emotional and spiritual intimacy. I believe that every time you have sex with someone, there is a spiritual exchange -- you get a tiny piece of their spirit, and they get a tiny part of yours. The more you have sex with them, the more you exchange. I do think that over time, your given-away-parts come back to you (and you can do spiritual work to make them come back faster), but it takes a while -- the length of time depends on how many times you had sex with them, and how intense each experience was. For this reason I believe casual sex is very unhealthy, because you're accepting parts of people who may be bad for you, and you're giving away a part of you that they may not be worthy of. I define casual sex as: sex with people whom you do not know well and/or do not love. I feel that you need to know them in order to judge if they are good for you, and you need to love them because sex is a sacred act and needs the presence of love so that both partners are treated with full respect and honor. So I would only have sex with someone I mutually knew well, loved, and was reasonably sure that they'd be in my life for a long time (in order to keep the parts of my spirit in my life until such time as I wanted to call them back). And for now, at least, they'd also have to be soulfriends with me, because I would need to have that level of intimacy and trust. There are many many people I find attractive, but even though they might make me flush or make my heart beat fast, if they don't also stir my spirit, I don't want to have sex with them.

So why would I want more than one partner? Partly, for balance -- I feel like (for ME) a two-person relationship is wobbly -- like if you had two pegs connected by a wire, they'd be pretty easily pushed over. But if you have three pegs, connected in a triangle, it's not as easy for them to fall. As the Bible says (haha!) "A cord of three strands is not quickly broken." Because in a relationship of two, if one person is weakened, the other has no support -- in a relationship of three, it is far more likely that there will be at least one person strong enough to support at any given time. But even though a triad would be my 'ideal' relationship shape, I'm open to a 'V,' where I have two partners who are not involved with each other (as long as they were open to attempting soulfriendship with each other). Or other configurations, of course.

Another reason is simply the fact that I've never so much as held hands with anyone except my partner. (not to mention kissing!) And I didn't know my own sexuality until years after I married my partner, so I never explored that either. I know that if I had learned it earlier, I would probably have thought myself a lesbian, because my partner's the only man I've ever met that I would marry, I'm pretty sure. I don't regret it one tiny bit -- I wouldn't be the person I am if I hadn't followed the path I did -- but experiencing a romantic and sexual relationship with a woman is something that is very important to me. Also, I do not like the concept of restricting myself romantically/sexually to one person, because it makes me feel 'owned' -- I know this is not something everyone feels, but it's true for me. I want to decide based on what is right for me (I feel that what is truly right for the individual is right for the group). And I think that I would grow immensely from a second sexually intimate relationship, because she would share the experience of being a woman and we would connect in a totally different way, and because it would involve challenging the accepted paradigms. Most of all, there is a place in my heart that is waiting for her. ♥ (I'm not completely closed to the idea of another man in my life, but I don't actively desire it)

( discussing it with my partner, why now )

I've been reading a book that references the cynicism of adulthood in comparison to the open-mindedness of childhood, and it got me thinking...

Children know the right way to live -- with wide-open eyes, taking everything seriously, believing unreservedly, following what their hearts tell them. We as adults train ourselves out of that because we are afraid of being vulnerable. We were not taught that we were of infinite value, or that we deserve love -- we were wounded in our delicate, open youth and so we have learned that to be open is to be hurt. But that is the only way to truly live, to experience the depth of joy in life. There's a part of the Bible that tells of how these little children wanted to be near Jesus, and the disciples tried to send them away because "We're having grown-up talk right now, very important, and we have no time for you." Jesus scolded them and told them that unless they become as vulnerable and open as a child they would never be able to truly connect with divinity. Then he joyfully blessed the children. ( the non-paraphrased version )

Our world is fucked up and if we are open, we WILL be hurt. But also, being open and willing to give and receive without reservation is the only way we will ever heal our world. So we have to accept the pain and decide that it is worth it... only then will we be able to truly connect with each other and with God/dess (whatever we perceive her/him to be). Also, we need to recognize that children have the same worth as adults, and we need open minds and hearts to learn from them. We are all on the same journey, regardless of age.

- - - b e a u t y - - -
please watch the whole thing, it is so worth it
That video made me cry and cry with sheer joy that there are people who live so lovingly.
When Hannah comes to visit this time, she and I and lil sis are going to visit ♥

I've been reading a book that references the cynicism of adulthood in comparison to the open-mindedness of childhood, and it got me thinking...

Children know the right way to live -- with wide-open eyes, taking everything seriously, believing unreservedly, following what their hearts tell them. We as adults train ourselves out of that because we are afraid of being vulnerable. We were not taught that we were of infinite value, or that we deserve love -- we were wounded in our delicate, open youth and so we have learned that to be open is to be hurt. But that is the only way to truly live, to experience the depth of joy in life. There's a part of the Bible that tells of how these little children wanted to be near Jesus, and the disciples tried to send them away because "We're having grown-up talk right now, very important, and we have no time for you." Jesus scolded them and told them that unless they become as vulnerable and open as a child they would never be able to truly connect with divinity. Then he joyfully blessed the children. ( the non-paraphrased version )

Our world is fucked up and if we are open, we WILL be hurt. But also, being open and willing to give and receive without reservation is the only way we will ever heal our world. So we have to accept the pain and decide that it is worth it... only then will we be able to truly connect with each other and with God/dess (whatever we perceive her/him to be). Also, we need to recognize that children have the same worth as adults, and we need open minds and hearts to learn from them. We are all on the same journey, regardless of age.

- - - b e a u t y - - -
please watch the whole thing, it is so worth it
That video made me cry and cry with sheer joy that there are people who live so lovingly.
When Hannah comes to visit this time, she and I and lil sis are going to visit ♥

I've been reading a book that references the cynicism of adulthood in comparison to the open-mindedness of childhood, and it got me thinking...

Children know the right way to live -- with wide-open eyes, taking everything seriously, believing unreservedly, following what their hearts tell them. We as adults train ourselves out of that because we are afraid of being vulnerable. We were not taught that we were of infinite value, or that we deserve love -- we were wounded in our delicate, open youth and so we have learned that to be open is to be hurt. But that is the only way to truly live, to experience the depth of joy in life. There's a part of the Bible that tells of how these little children wanted to be near Jesus, and the disciples tried to send them away because "We're having grown-up talk right now, very important, and we have no time for you." Jesus scolded them and told them that unless they become as vulnerable and open as a child they would never be able to truly connect with divinity. Then he joyfully blessed the children. ( the non-paraphrased version )

Our world is fucked up and if we are open, we WILL be hurt. But also, being open and willing to give and receive without reservation is the only way we will ever heal our world. So we have to accept the pain and decide that it is worth it... only then will we be able to truly connect with each other and with God/dess (whatever we perceive her/him to be). Also, we need to recognize that children have the same worth as adults, and we need open minds and hearts to learn from them. We are all on the same journey, regardless of age.

- - - b e a u t y - - -
please watch the whole thing, it is so worth it
That video made me cry and cry with sheer joy that there are people who live so lovingly.
When Hannah comes to visit this time, she and I and lil sis are going to visit ♥

For the longest time I wasn't sure what I believed about homosexuality, so I just didn't say anything. I refuse to espouse an opinion unless I feel that I can articulate why it is mine. My beliefs on this subject have been years in the making and I now feel secure that they are right for me, they are what I believe at core.

( initial searchings... )( ... )

I believe that sex is a physical expression of emotional and spiritual intimacy; I don't think the primary purpose is for procreation or physical enjoyment. (I think when God/dess said 'go and be fruitful' s/he didn't mean, 'go have a million babies' s/he meant grow, develop, bear spiritual fruit.) I believe that we can have emotional & spiritual intimacy with any human being, regardless of genitalia, and that that can fulfill us without sex, or we can choose to expand that intimacy into sexual intimacy as well. I don't think there are inborn penchants for sex; I think that we are limited only by what our experiences have taught us to desire.

I also don't believe in mental gender. I'll probably go deeper into that in another post, but for now I'll just say that I don't believe that there are qualities that are inherently 'feminine' or 'masculine' -- they're all HUMAN qualities. If they seem to divide according to physical sex, that is only because of societal conditioning.

So I believe healthy sex is a human-to-human expression of emotional and spiritual intimacy, and physical gender is unimportant. I believe there is no such thing as 'heterosexual' or 'homosexual' or 'bisexual' or any of the rest -- we're all just human.

As for myself, I'm attracted to everyone -- "I like everything. Boyish girls, girlish boys, the heavy and the skinny. Which is a problem when I'm walking down the street." There are characteristics that catch my eye more than others, but for me sexual attraction could only develop from an emotionally and spiritally intimate relationship. Sometimes a person's persona can make my heart skip, but it's really not predictable by outward appearance; I think that what steals my breath is their spirits shining through. Women catch my attention more, but I think that is because as a group we suffer more and therefore have more opportunity to grow, and I'm attracted to people who have a passion for growth. And I think it's also because I'm married to Nimajneb, and I don't think I've ever met a man who matches his passion for growth -- and I tend to subconsciously compare men to him.

If I must pick a category, I call myself bisexual. To myself, I'm labelfree. I've wanted to express the fact that I am attracted to both sexes for a long time, but I didn't want to do it until I knew how I felt about all sexuality, and felt confident enough to speak it to anyone. I expect that some friends will no longer be interested in me, and that's fine; I understand that my views conflict with many beliefs that have been reinforced for years, and if our relationship isn't stronger than those beliefs, that's okay. If you disagree with me, please do it from the perspective that this is my opinion and it differs from yours: not 'you're wrong, I'm right.' Like I said, these beliefs have been long in development and they are very strong. I'm open to new ideas but none of the old ones are going to change my mind.

comments screened but will be unscreened unless you ask for them to stay screened -- or if I think they're too inflammatory. don't want any comment wars. ;-)

IMPORTANT NOTE: these beliefs have changed upon new realizations which I need to post about! suffice to say that I believe God has no problem with homosexuality itself and never did. (added nov 9, 2007 -- new post to come on the subject soon, hopefully)

For the longest time I wasn't sure what I believed about homosexuality, so I just didn't say anything. I refuse to espouse an opinion unless I feel that I can articulate why it is mine. My beliefs on this subject have been years in the making and I now feel secure that they are right for me, they are what I believe at core.

( initial searchings... )( ... )

I believe that sex is a physical expression of emotional and spiritual intimacy; I don't think the primary purpose is for procreation or physical enjoyment. (I think when God/dess said 'go and be fruitful' s/he didn't mean, 'go have a million babies' s/he meant grow, develop, bear spiritual fruit.) I believe that we can have emotional & spiritual intimacy with any human being, regardless of genitalia, and that that can fulfill us without sex, or we can choose to expand that intimacy into sexual intimacy as well. I don't think there are inborn penchants for sex; I think that we are limited only by what our experiences have taught us to desire.

I also don't believe in mental gender. I'll probably go deeper into that in another post, but for now I'll just say that I don't believe that there are qualities that are inherently 'feminine' or 'masculine' -- they're all HUMAN qualities. If they seem to divide according to physical sex, that is only because of societal conditioning.

So I believe healthy sex is a human-to-human expression of emotional and spiritual intimacy, and physical gender is unimportant. I believe there is no such thing as 'heterosexual' or 'homosexual' or 'bisexual' or any of the rest -- we're all just human.

As for myself, I'm attracted to everyone -- "I like everything. Boyish girls, girlish boys, the heavy and the skinny. Which is a problem when I'm walking down the street." There are characteristics that catch my eye more than others, but for me sexual attraction could only develop from an emotionally and spiritally intimate relationship. Sometimes a person's persona can make my heart skip, but it's really not predictable by outward appearance; I think that what steals my breath is their spirits shining through. Women catch my attention more, but I think that is because as a group we suffer more and therefore have more opportunity to grow, and I'm attracted to people who have a passion for growth. And I think it's also because I'm married to Nimajneb, and I don't think I've ever met a man who matches his passion for growth -- and I tend to subconsciously compare men to him.

If I must pick a category, I call myself bisexual. To myself, I'm labelfree. I've wanted to express the fact that I am attracted to both sexes for a long time, but I didn't want to do it until I knew how I felt about all sexuality, and felt confident enough to speak it to anyone. I expect that some friends will no longer be interested in me, and that's fine; I understand that my views conflict with many beliefs that have been reinforced for years, and if our relationship isn't stronger than those beliefs, that's okay. If you disagree with me, please do it from the perspective that this is my opinion and it differs from yours: not 'you're wrong, I'm right.' Like I said, these beliefs have been long in development and they are very strong. I'm open to new ideas but none of the old ones are going to change my mind.

comments screened but will be unscreened unless you ask for them to stay screened -- or if I think they're too inflammatory. don't want any comment wars. ;-)

IMPORTANT NOTE: these beliefs have changed upon new realizations which I need to post about! suffice to say that I believe God has no problem with homosexuality itself and never did. (added nov 9, 2007 -- new post to come on the subject soon, hopefully)

For the longest time I wasn't sure what I believed about homosexuality, so I just didn't say anything. I refuse to espouse an opinion unless I feel that I can articulate why it is mine. My beliefs on this subject have been years in the making and I now feel secure that they are right for me, they are what I believe at core.

( initial searchings... )( ... )

I believe that sex is a physical expression of emotional and spiritual intimacy; I don't think the primary purpose is for procreation or physical enjoyment. (I think when God/dess said 'go and be fruitful' s/he didn't mean, 'go have a million babies' s/he meant grow, develop, bear spiritual fruit.) I believe that we can have emotional & spiritual intimacy with any human being, regardless of genitalia, and that that can fulfill us without sex, or we can choose to expand that intimacy into sexual intimacy as well. I don't think there are inborn penchants for sex; I think that we are limited only by what our experiences have taught us to desire.

I also don't believe in mental gender. I'll probably go deeper into that in another post, but for now I'll just say that I don't believe that there are qualities that are inherently 'feminine' or 'masculine' -- they're all HUMAN qualities. If they seem to divide according to physical sex, that is only because of societal conditioning.

So I believe healthy sex is a human-to-human expression of emotional and spiritual intimacy, and physical gender is unimportant. I believe there is no such thing as 'heterosexual' or 'homosexual' or 'bisexual' or any of the rest -- we're all just human.

As for myself, I'm attracted to everyone -- "I like everything. Boyish girls, girlish boys, the heavy and the skinny. Which is a problem when I'm walking down the street." There are characteristics that catch my eye more than others, but for me sexual attraction could only develop from an emotionally and spiritally intimate relationship. Sometimes a person's persona can make my heart skip, but it's really not predictable by outward appearance; I think that what steals my breath is their spirits shining through. Women catch my attention more, but I think that is because as a group we suffer more and therefore have more opportunity to grow, and I'm attracted to people who have a passion for growth. And I think it's also because I'm married to Nimajneb, and I don't think I've ever met a man who matches his passion for growth -- and I tend to subconsciously compare men to him.

If I must pick a category, I call myself bisexual. To myself, I'm labelfree. I've wanted to express the fact that I am attracted to both sexes for a long time, but I didn't want to do it until I knew how I felt about all sexuality, and felt confident enough to speak it to anyone. I expect that some friends will no longer be interested in me, and that's fine; I understand that my views conflict with many beliefs that have been reinforced for years, and if our relationship isn't stronger than those beliefs, that's okay. If you disagree with me, please do it from the perspective that this is my opinion and it differs from yours: not 'you're wrong, I'm right.' Like I said, these beliefs have been long in development and they are very strong. I'm open to new ideas but none of the old ones are going to change my mind.

comments screened but will be unscreened unless you ask for them to stay screened -- or if I think they're too inflammatory. don't want any comment wars. ;-)

IMPORTANT NOTE: these beliefs have changed upon new realizations which I need to post about! suffice to say that I believe God has no problem with homosexuality itself and never did. (added nov 9, 2007 -- new post to come on the subject soon, hopefully)