Relationship as Ownership

With popular culture singing about "my girl" and "my best friends' girl", is it any wonder? When "you should have put a ring on it" and "I need you to need me". From Pretty Woman to An Officer and a Gentleman to "I want to know what love is". There isn't any rationality to it, and because there is not supposed to be, people assume or play along that everything is the way it ought to be.

These pop-culture consumables are not meant to be models, at least not overtly, yet they end up being-in so many ways-just that. Without healthy models in their own lives, so many children end up needing something to base their ideals of relationship on. They can turn to the ubiquitous presence of music and visual media to learn. An understandable mistake, although a crippling one.

I will propose that it is not to own or be owned; that much is certain. However, the fear of being committed should not keep one from relationship. It is not about belonging in the sense of ownership, if we say "they belong together". It is the kind of belonging like birds belong in the air and fish belong in water; it is that right-ness of being that every moment else was not wrong but can never be right in the same way again.

Safer Sex

I was struck by a difference of focus, and that there are various levels, much like Maslow's hierarchy of needs. What I mean is that we talk about and pay attention to particular aspects, but leave others unaddressed. This is potentially due to the reluctance to discuss such "personal" matters in any detail.

When it comes to talking about sex, there have been advances made in providing information about condoms, gender and sexuality, and protecting against physical attacks. All important topics, and they should be part of every young person's education. Yet these are just basics, and we still struggle to have accurate, rational discussions about them. There are so many more parts, deeper and more intimate than just which fleshy bits go where.

The emotional, spiritual, and mental aspects of sex, and relationships in general, are so much more fundamental as well as essential. I have found that these latter points have an under-recognized (or at least under-discussed) importance, and I want to bring them into the fore. It has been through exposure to many influences that I recognize this, but I want to especially recognize Dr. David Schnarch. I highly recommend his books for everyone.

Speaking for myself, when I don't feel safe to be emotionally vulnerable to my partner, I don't want to be intimate. It has taken me a long time to realize this basic, simple correlation. I am less able to be open, to express my wants, or be willing to fulfill my partner's wishes when I am feeling distant to them. Bluntly: when I'm feeling psychically closed off, I want to keep my legs closed.

Beyond physical safety (a barrier and/or consent), there are considerations for long-term relationships. This is what I mean by "safer". After people have established their power dynamics and safewords, then what? That's where the real relationship of sex begins, I think. That is where not doing the dishes or staying out late begins to influence how attracted I am to my partner. When them getting what they want outside the bedroom begins to influence how receptive I can be inside it.

So, instead of thinking, "I'm not as attracted to them lately, it must be [their hair, weight, or paycheck]." It could be, "I really don't like when they [call me 'fat' or 'crazy', disrespect me in front of others, or dismiss my opinions on meaningful topics." Sex is not merely physical, and neither are sexual "problems".

I Would Do Anything for....

I feel a strong need to dedicate this post to Meatloaf, that is the rocking recording artist/actor.
Not the food product.

At any rate, my purpose is to discuss an interesting topic: the meaning of this claim about doing anything for some cause, person, or object. Oftentimes we hear someone claim that they would do anything for love or their family, I will call these individuals "claimants".  What is understood from this is that they would accomplish heroic feats or go to the ultimate limit to safeguard that object/ideal.  Mainly, it has been used to announce that the claimant doesn't mind death or serious injury in protecting said item.  I propose that claimants are being a bit grandiose in these statements.  Most of us are never called upon to do anything so drastic as putting our lives or bodies in harms way to protect another.  There are many documented cases of uninvolved individuals doing just that, in fact.  It doesn't really take a great attachment or forethought to act in extreme cases, just an openness to justice or relation to other humans.  These claimants can rest assured that they can, and will, still make the ultimate sacrifice if called upon.  This is still, however, worth examining because of the alternative I propose.  Rather than these improbable promises, I would support claimants instead to actually do something necessary: work on their own shortcomings.  Instead of holding out for that extreme and unlikely event (while not preparing for it in any way, I will add), I would suggest practical and meaningful personal improvement.  I propose that this active course is actually the more necessary and beneficial one.  This is because it accomplishes something immediately, it is rewarding for the claimant, and it demonstrates more concretely their intention and motivation.  It is also the more difficult choice.  It proves that the claimant means business and isn't "all talk".

Food v. Sex

It is a fascinating subject, people's attitudes about normal bodily functions. For example, what if we were to have a stigma attached to eating such as we have for sex? Eating, like sex, is something that maintains the species (on an individual basis rather than as a whole), is nearly universal, and has dysfunctions attached, so I think there is an equivalence between them. If eating were considered strictly a private, intimate, and even taboo subject, what would people have to do? Would people have much the same reactions to witnessing a person eating as they do now to sexual behaviour? Imagine what it would mean.

People currently take classes on how and what to eat, nutrition classes that help them understand better what their bodies need and how to take care of them-but even the preparation of food would be risque in this scenario. Children would have to be taught that they don't put things in their mouth in public, that they shouldn't even put their finger in their mouth as it could remind someone of the act of eating. People would have isolated rooms for the act of eating. Accidentally walking into the eating room when someone was in there EATING would be embarrassing and could be made scary or traumatizing. All these things over a simple, natural activity we all engage in and require for various reasons, as well as one we should enjoy.

Yet we instead have this taboo around sex, and how has this improved our society and condition as a race? It is unfortunate that we have such a problem with the subject, even to the point of causing dysfunction.

The education children receive currently in "sex ed", if that is even the term for it anymore, as it has generally been "no-sex" education in this country. The government has gone so far as to deny funding for people who actually want to put some education about sex in there. Maybe teaching them the things they need to know, even though their parents are afraid of it is not such a bad thing. Maybe a universal minimum education should include some direction on how to take care of and understand our own bodies. We all need to know how to protect ourselves from many things, and take care of ourselves in many ways, yet this vital area is completely ignored. Many of the same people who limit sexual learning want to teach children all about guns and war, a much more perverse thing, and one which does actually have a demonstrable negative and lasting psychic impact. Just ask the millions dead and suffering from physical and psychological wounds because of it. The only way people suffer from sex is if it's forced, manipulative, or just unsafe in some way. Which is the same with all activities, even eating.

Do what you want to the girl...

I know that many people say they wish that their kids' lives will be better than their own, that their children should have all the opportunities possible. They say, "I want her to have all the things I never did"...not me. I want my own life to be the best and certainly to be better than it was growing up; my kid can fend for himself, it's alright if I let him do without a few things. I should get all the treats and gifts because, really, I'm who is important in this world; I count for more since I'm older and have more to offer than a child who can't do anything on his own. Not that I want him to have a horrible life, or plan on creating drama, or trauma, for him-all I'm saying's that me and my life are what matters. Besides, it'll be good for him in the long run: it will give him more character and provide great "life experiences". In fact, allow me to explain more fully my attitude, and say that the same reasoning applies to my wife. She's on her own when it comes to what she wants; I'm not here to provide, to be her supplier of joy or support-she should be happy just to have me in her life. Yes, sir, I'm out for myself, only looking out for my needs, and not to worry about anyone else's. No one else is going to do it for me, that's for sure, and why should I do it for anyone else?

This is all farce, of course, I don't believe in this attitude, nor do I think anyone would say they do subscribe to it. On hearing it, I think most people would say it sounds completely ridiculous: that is backwards, we cherish our children and need to protect them, to provide for and enrich the lives of children; we are even willing to give our lives for them if necessary. Yet for all this lip-service a lot of people actually apply the attitude I outlined previously when it comes to their lives, and act as though it were what they truly believe. Since it is the actions that count, rather than what we claim we will do, then it is our actions which indicate who we truly are (though that is a topic for another time). So these people behave as though their selves and their own lives are more important to them than those who they "care most about" and "love", showing who and what is truly important to them. They will treat their intimates as if only their own needs and desires matter, and that others should accommodate this attitude; as though those around them should somehow serve them. I've seen it and experienced it myself, with intimate relationships in particular: no matter how much I could give, it would not be enough because I still want to be treated as a human and live my own life according to what works for me and makes me happy. Another way this attitude can play out is if the first person tries to give and do "all" for the second, making themselves the "willing servant". This is actually another form of control, as it allows the subservient person to manipulate others by pointing out their own sacrifice and how much it takes for them to do so. Thusly, the child or spouse becomes a pawn, rather than an individual, just another means to their own needs. The needs that will be filled are those that the "subservient one" feels like allowing.

So now we've explored this issue and seen behind these attitudes a little, we find we're talking basically about two sides of the same coin. We know that we cannot give all of ourselves for any other individual, it is not a rational means of obtaining our own or others' fulfillment. Moreover, it leaves only a shell of a person with no means of provoking true challenge to and reward for others. Neither should we be so careless and selfish as to wish for others to react this way. Else we risk becoming entirely self-centered and attempting to be self-sufficient all alone. We should have care for those around us and their individuality, as we expect them to do for us. Somewhere between these two extremes we can find a balance, without feeling we have to sacrifice ourselves or others to achieve happiness.

The Anatomy of a Failed Relationship

Is it just “having one’s needs met”, or is there more to Love and being in an intimate relationship? If you just care about having someone to have sex with or who will clean, does that mean it will work and is a relationship that should last? What about those who have a set of requirements, or guidelines, if you prefer? Does someone fitting your "ideal" really mean everlasting joy? Is it just “a cute ass, nice hair, good in bed, a great cook, well read, and financially stable"? Is that really the recipe for Love? I don’t think so; I think so many people are unhappy precisely because they think a monogamous relationship with a person that fills out the requisites for a personal ad should be bliss. Furthermore, I think that so many of these couples end up splitting because they are not really compatible, they literally cannot be. They don’t know how to have a truly adult relationship, one that is based on commonalities as well as differences, one that accounts for reality and "human nature". How can they, when society at large doesn't know? When people are still excluded and persecuted instead of being understood and accepted? How can any of us know how to have healthy relationships, when our parents didn't know-or even prepare us by admitting their ignorance to us? If we don't know ourselves, what we want and need, then there is no use to have others in our life. People change, lives shift focus, people grow and outgrow, and expecting to “stay together forever” may not be entirely realistic or honest. I say this because so many seem to forget that they are not (or should not be) the same person they were at 18, or at 30, years old. In the intervening time, things adjust to the world; experience shapes who we become and what we want. Expecting that two people will keep the same level of interest and desire for each other through even the modern "ideal" of marriage is naive.

The very basis of "marriage" is stagnation, the idea being that each puts their life in the hands of the other "for better or worse." This is not freedom, but rather mutual reassurance. It is a bargain that each will stick with the other so neither need to worry about being alone. There is no room for growth, for acceptance of an ever-evolving "other-half", so there can be no real "together". Half of marriages in the U.S. end in two people unhappy with each other and not able to be together. Even more are the uncounted number of intimate, committed relationships that take place outside of that section of the populace which chooses (or is allowed) to marry. These 'renegade' relationships face equal turbulence and more break-ups, yet are not counted because of their "non-sanctioned" or accepted "temporary" status. They remain outside of statistics and study of marriage, I think, because the numbers and findings would be so much larger and it would be uncomfortable to admit what it might mean.

The Cult of the Penis

It seems that many people, but men especially, have the idea that certain parts of their body are somehow special, even that they are “holy” in some way, and therefore get treated differently than the rest. It is strange that some things that are so close to the truth are yet so twisted and misguided. Just as all people are miraculous, our bodies are marvelous and incredible-but this doesn’t mean that one or another person or part is better than the others, in fact it means the opposite, that none can be. People have different abilities and different forms and that is all they are: different. One or another is not “better”, that is the type of thinking that seeks to control others, and love is not about power. The goal is not to conquer or subjugate, but to forge connections and enrich relationships. This goes for sex as well, and maybe especially, since it is an exposure of ones’ entire naked self to another. Not just physically, either, Love and being intimate with someone else requires an exposure of one’s inner self, as well as the outer. This state of vulnerability requires much trust and confidence in whomever you share it with, and it should be revered as an expression of that relationship. Just because a man penetrates a woman doesn’t make her a possession or an object, she still retains all her own sacredness. Men seem to feel that they take possession of a woman after having sex with her, that his ‘mark’ is on her and no one else should touch her because of that, not even herself. The insecurity of men in part stems from this, because they will wonder, “what if the ‘mark’ comes off, or is ‘overwritten’ by another?” These interactions and attitudes are reflected in movies such as Chasing Amy and Closer, demonstrated by characters that pursue and revere sex. These people eventually come to understand that there is no special “mark”, that the special part of the relationship is the love that makes it happen. The relationship itself is all the “mark” that is needed. Understanding the uniqueness of this act, and of the feelings that accompany it, takes a lot more maturity than most people care to develop. We should really be worried more about the mind, because that is the biggest sex organ, and source of all intentions in regards to sex and whether to remain “faithful or cheat”-not the penis or vagina.

A Confession

I have to admit some things, and I hope you will bear with me. Some people may stumble upon my blog out amoungst the many on the web; others know me personally and I have invited to read what I write here. It is my hope that whoever you are, dear reader, that you explore, ponder, and otherwise enjoy my blog. Having said that, I feel the need to share a few things about myself, as writer and individual. I am not just a robot typing out drivel at random, though it may indeed seem that way (hopefully not, but it is possible); I am a person, much like yourself, I imagine. We probably share the same desires, hopes, and dreams: living in a better world, making a difference, loving and being loved in return, all the things that make us feel important and human. I recently went through a divorce from my partner of eight years, and it has been surprisingly difficult for both of us to act like rational adults in the process. Things have changed that I thought had been set for all time-I really considered us to be inseparable for the rest of our lives. But this is what happens when we delude ourselves, and allow ourselves to be deluded by others. I was silly to have thought that, and only now am I beginning to see why and how. I don't think I regret the experience, just that it had to be such a painful lesson, and that I caused so much inadvertent pain to someone I loved. However, I think I did learn some things, and so I can still agree with Alanis who said, "I greatly recommend getting your heart trampled on...."

To Grok

The Webster’s dictionary defines this as: “[coined in a sci-fi novel by Robert A. Heinlein (1961)] [Slang] to understand thoroughly because of having empathy (with).” Unlike the dictionary, I am not claiming to have the absolute or final definition of any word; here I will simply attempt to convey what this one means to me. To begin with, it is not some flighty, “Oh, I get what you’re saying.”, but a deep, visceral comprehension. A school of philosophy holds that one must live the philosophy. They say just as a menu is not a meal, life is not thinking about it, but doing. So to grok something is to become that object in a sense-to eliminate as much as possible the barriers between one’s ‘self’ and the ‘other’. When you can truly live inside anothers being, no matter how foreign that other is, you have ‘grokked’ it. This may be difficult for many to handle because it applies to all things, from an ant to a serial killer. Before you object, what I am saying is that only by understanding murderers can we stop them or, ideally, prevent them from starting. Just because we understand, or in this case grok, something’s function or meaning does not mean that we leave it on its own to suffer or spread suffering. If you truly want to understand something or someone, then you have to let go of all those ‘filters’ that stand in the way. We need to accept whatever the thing is can only be itself, not what we want it to be. Finally, one needs to grasp the entirety of the being. It is easy to love something in one context, but then find out something else that changes that feeling. To be drawn to and appreciate the power and elegance of a lioness is not the same as facing a hungry one unprotected. Essentially, one needs to immerse ones’ self within a complete knowledge of the thing. I believe that once this understanding has occurred, then one will Love that thing. I use the capital ‘L’ here to differentiate from the everyday use of the word because it has more than the pedestrian meaning. The feeling is more pronounced because of its context. This is, in part, because everything Loves itself; it has to or it would be self-destructive/suicidal. So when we grok a thing, we Love it as if we were Loving ourselves, rather than how we would love something separate from our self. Also, if you Love something, then you must grok that thing; it gets difficult to determine which comes first, actually. True, deep understanding inevitably leads to Love. Conversely, to hate something is to reject it and fear it. Just remember, no one said it would be easy.

Relationships

It is difficult to come to an agreement on this subject, even though it is one that we all deal with at some time in our lives. The greatest problem is that so many people are mixed up about so much in their life that something as fundamental and powerful as being loved and loving others is beyond them-and this goes double for those struggling to simply survive. On the hierarchy of needs, food beats love every time. By this I mean a person has to be very secure in order to really love another, and being worried about where one’s next meal is or what another person thinks is not a very secure foundation. Even after settling one's life by meeting those basic needs, one still has to gain experience with the subject. By this, I mean that thinking about something and actually doing it are very different experiences. People often fantasize about relationships, but those are idealized to minimize effort for maximum rewards-as all fantasies are; real relationships are not like that, they are all work. Further, to do something well always takes practice, yet we are told that we will simply get this "right" the first time! Supposedly the first time we fall in love, we will have found the person with whom we spend the rest of our lives. Also, evidently, making friends and getting along with fellow students, coworkers, etc., is natural, because we aren’t taught how to make those connections either. After this fantasy we finally come to the reality of it: when we have relationships, we fumble and fail-as we should. The best way to learn something is still to do it. Inevitably we get hurt, we make those mistakes with our relationships. Friends come and go, family is estranged, marriages end; all these things are symptoms of our deficiency. Still we improve over time, each failure teaches us something we need to know. If people truly wanted to avoid these hurts, then we would actually teach the inexperienced what they need to know. There is an old adage, “No [person] is an island.” the problem being that everyone is an island in that we have no natural emotional connection to others. We need to form attachments, even between family, between parents and offspring. This is meant in two different ways: first we “need” to do it because it is important for our well being, and secondly because it isn’t automatic, it does require effort. Finally, what sort of relationships are we forming? Are they strong, healthy ones or are they made from desperation, just to meet our need for companionship? It can be very difficult to tell, unless we examine how it makes us feel. Are you lost without your mate? Does your world revolve around the status of your relationship? Do you feel like you don’t deserve the relationship? Do you sacrifice yourself to maintain the relationship? If you answered, “yes” to any of these questions, you may want to seriously look at what you want out of your life and the relationship you are in. Always remember, you cannot Love another until you Love yourself.