| Book Ramblings - Od Magic |
|
|
| 02:34pm 30/11/2009 |
| |
mood:  contemplative music: wildflower (instrumental) - Sonic Youth
|
Just finished the above novel by Patricia McKillip; wow, do i love the way she uses language.
"Air screamed and beat around him. He flung up his arms, fending off a flurry of fierce golden eyes and outstretched claws. The eyes, too, like Valoren's, stunned him breathless for an instant. Then his thoughts, outrunning his own body to escape the wizard, pulled him after them; in the next breath, he knew he was elsewhere, he had done something, but he was not certain what. The ground was flowing underneath him like water; the terrible eyes had vanished. Borne on the wind, or on the frantic rush of his own thoughts, a bird, a dead leaf, a wisp of smoke, whatever shape he had made for himself fled with him until the threat in his head diminished and he began to feel his own shape again."
To give you a basic overview, imagine a world with only one school of magic, and that settled cheek-by-jowl with the castle of a kingdom. Imagine that the school was started by a wizard who was since disappeared on extended sabbatical, and that the rulers, in her absence, have seen fit to decree that no magic can be practiced in the kingdom unless it's learned at that one school and sanctioned by the king. Now add a street magician who just wants a tiny corner to settle and practice illusions in peace and a lone, nomadic gardener with a special affinity for plants who doesn't know he's been learning anything but horticulture out in the woods and empty plains.
Ultimately, the author comes to much the same conclusion about magic that i've come to in a lot of areas of my life (not all, but many)--that when you draw too many barriers and try to limit your scope to what feels safe and easily controlled, you don't just limit power; you limit wonder and imagination and curiosity. Dreams and ideas need some room to play, out beyond the scope of knowledge. Maybe sometimes we need to let go of the need to have everything nice and neat and safe and just let our minds--and our people--out, like ferrets, to explore and see what they bring back. Maybe words are better as descriptors than as categories, and maybe sometimes you have to let go of words altogether and just experience. Maybe it's important that we have some ideas and memories for which there are no words.
Anyway, it's definitely worth a read. |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| Book Review: Nonviolent Communication by Dr. Marshall Rosenberg |
|
|
| 07:42pm 22/08/2009 |
| |
mood:  hopeful music: Echoes - Dar Williams
|
Lately, it seems like everybody and his kid sister in the Quaker world has been getting excited about this Nonviolent Communication program (even though it seems to have been around for somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 years. Why, again, did it take so long to catch on among us?). So, being as i'm supposed to serve on Nurturing Committee for next year's AYF program at FGC Gathering, and being as i'm on the board for a dance organization that's dealt with a lot of disagreement and harsh words of late, and being as i often do staff work for one fur con (maybe two, nothing solid as yet) and a friend has talked me into doing security for another, i thought a little background in nonviolent communication (NVC) might help smooth the work a little.
Here's what i found...
Well, for starters, there's a lot of poetry by the author and by Ruth Bebermeyer, an old friend of the author. Skip it. It really doesn't add anything to the book, and if there's a message in any one poem that Rosenberg wants you to get, he'll give it to you in the text before or after.
The author's central point, however, and the process he outlines, are sound. Basically, Rosenberg argues that when we communicate, virtually anytime we communicate, at the heart we're all basically saying "this is what i feel, and this is what i want." Sometimes all you really want is for someone to hear you; sometimes you want something more. And if you can get in touch with those basic needs and emotions, both in yourself and in other people, it's a lot easier to have a peaceful conversation about how to solve any problem that may have come up. This may (and often will) involve not only expressing your own feelings and needs, but translating someone else's words into NVC and reflecting them back so that that person knows you've really heard them.
The theories and format are certainly well tested. Apparently originally developed as a way to ease the process of integrating US schools during the civil rights era, it's had lots of time to get tested and tweaked. Rosenberg himself is trained as a clinical psychologist and still practices as such, although he admits that he's done away with many of the traditional standards of therapeutic methodology in his own practice in favor of NVC. He's also a well-traveled and rather sought-after workshop leader on NVC, and is considered one of the foremost authorities on the subject. Throughout the book, Rosenberg talks relates many of his experiences teaching and using NVC with all sorts of challenging groups: warring street gangs, kids in juvenile detention, convicts in the prison system, hospitalized schizophrenics, war-torn isrealis and palestinians...If the system were going to crash and burn, i imagine it would have done it by now.
The communicational format he outlines isn't an easy one: you need to express A. What specifically someone else did, B. What you felt (without its being because of any particular action), C. What you want or need and D. What, specifically, you'd like someone else to do to help. Our language is built in such a way to infer causation very easily, but NVC asks me to associate what you did and what i felt only to the extent that one came after another. We live in a society where we're not trained to be in touch our feelings, most especially for men. That makes it hard to say exactly what i feel and very easy to toss in a few theories about what other people think or feel about me instead. We also live in a society where we're taught not to talk about what we want or need too much, especially when distressed; it's a sign of weakness or of selfishness. I think women tend to particularly struggle with this little bit of socialization.
Still, despite this, and despite a few minor philosophical differences, i think the author has really put his finger on something significant, something i have every hope will help in the kinds of volunteer work i do. I can't always give people what they want; no one can. But i know sometimes when i'm wanting something, all i really need is to know that i've been heard and understood, and that someone is taking my concerns into account when they make decisions that affect me. Who knows? Maybe if i can talk to the next person who feels they just *have* to have their cell phone with them in the art show, i can help them see that i understand and recognize their frustration and i care, even if i still can't oblige them, and that i do have good reasons for enforcing that rule. And maybe that might help us to resolve the matter just a bit more peacefully.
Hey, it's worth a try, right? |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| Quaker Camp 2009 - Can we call a do-over? |
|
|
| 03:13pm 27/07/2009 |
| |
mood:  busy music: Quiet Little Place - K's Choice
|
Recently, a friend asked me if i would consider typing up con reports for some of the major gatherings i attend. His point was that he, a furry, was curious about some of the quaker gathers i attend, so it stood to reason that some of the (very few) quakers who follow my blog might be curious about the furry gathers, too. I think his point was also to sweet-talk me into posting more often.
Well, ask and ye shall receive. And *receive*. And **receive**. Warning: this is really long.( 'I don't care! Dish, girl!' ) |
|
| |
|
Read 2 - Post |
| |
| The world is spinning, but that doesn't mean it's revolving around you. |
|
|
| 09:28am 22/05/2009 |
| |
mood: thoughtful music: Indigo Girls - Deconstruction
|
From the book Bozo Sapiens by Michael and Ellen Kaplan, which i've been reading of late:
"Timing Is another major source of difficulties; just as we all to easily link events that happen sequentially into cause and effect, we fail to recognize genuine links if there is too much lag....
"Nothing is likely to break us of our poor response to unexpected timing, since it draws on some very ancient habits of the vertebrate brain. B. F. Skinner's work with pigeons began in World War II, when he trained them to work as the guidance system for smart bombs by feeding them each time they pecked at an image of a Japanese battleship. Peck, then feed: cause and effect. After the war, Skinner extended this idea of conditioned response into the broad, chilly doctrine of behaviorism. But in one experiment he reversed the principle by giving the pigeons the usual bar to peck yet feeding them at the same interval no matter what they did. The results were remarkable: the pigeons developed superstitions, long and complex dance routines that, they apparently believed, "made" the food come out--because it seemed to work every time. By disconnecting timing from reward Skinner had effectively removed common sense from the situation..."
When i think about just how many times i've seen this in the way folks handle copiers and other such office machinery, or the attitudes folks take about their favorite sports teams...Heck, you can even see it sometimes in ordinary interpersonal interaction.
I guess sometimes we just can't accept the idea that something happened and it had nothing to do with us.
And maybe we need that level of self-centeredness to function in the world, so that we never overlook the possibility that we could fix whatever's happening; if we recognized just how often things that happen are pure blind chance, we might never try to change anything and we'd never see tools like lightning rods and antibiotics. But somehow, it still seems like the height of arrogance that i believe everything that happens around me is somehow mysteriously something i caused. |
|
| |
|
Read 3 - Post |
| |
| A tiny note of loss |
|
|
| 10:07pm 24/02/2009 |
| |
mood:  sympathetic music: Vertical Horizon - Goodnight My Friend
|
Reading others' memories and sorrows over the death of Patrick "Furp" Reed, a well-loved staffer at many a fur con and friend, it seems to about half the furry community, i found myself remembering a poem by Edna St Vincent Millay that i've had tucked away for some time:
_Dirge Without Music_
I am not resigned to the shutting away of loving hearts in the ground.
So it is, and so it will be, for so it has been, time without mind.
Into the darkness they go, the wise and the lovely. Crowned
With lilies and with laurel they go; but i am not resigned.
Lovers and thinkers, into the earth with you.
Be one with the dull, the indescriminate dust.
A fragment of what you felt, what you knew,
A formula, a phrase remains--but the best is lost.
The answers quick and keen, the honest look, the laughter, the love,
They are gone. They have gone to feed the roses. Elegant and curled
Is the blossom. Fragrant is the blossom. I know. But i do not approve.
More precious was the light in your eyes than all the roses in the world.
Down, down, down into the darkness of the grave
Gently they go, the beautiful, the tender, the kind;
Quietly they go, the intelligent, the witty, the brave.
I know. But i do not approve. And i am not resigned. |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| It's not me, it's not you, it's today. |
|
|
| 04:08pm 13/02/2009 |
| |
mood:  pensive music: Sting - Send Your Love
|
Or tomorrow, anyway.
This time of year always seems to inspire me to do a lot of thinking about Valentine's as a holiday; the fact that a friend of mine is hosting a Valentine's Day Sucks party is just furthering that.
It seems to me that it starts in grade school. Remember when the teachers got so fed up with drama that they said you had to either give everyone a valentine or not give them out at all? On a day that's focused on love in all its forms, no one wants to be the kid that nobody likes. And even then, it seemed like everyone knew which kids only got a valentine because it was necessary.
Heading into my 20's, i used to follow more or less the same pattern every valentine's day. At the start of the day, i'd be sunny and cheerful, filled with this 'i love everyone' spirit, firm in my belief that the day shouldn't be restricted to romantic love. By the end of the day, i'd be tired, depressed, mildly crabby, and unsure what had happened to my spirit of goodwill. It took me a long time to admit the truth, that i had (despite my best intentions) internalized that old message, and valentine's is for lovers, and those who don't have boy- or girlfriends are too insignificant or pathetic to worry about. As bad as i get about this, my mother is usually worse; most of her significant others have been terrible about taking the time to celebrate her like she deserves, and being single on valentines tends to bring out all of her pessimism for the future of her love life, which bothers her a lot more than it does me.
Around the same time that i named the cause of my dissatisfaction, however, i realized that i really didn't know *anyone* who genuinely enjoyed valentine's. Most of those friends of mine who were single generally spent the day either ignoring the holiday or feeling rejected and disgusted with themselves. Those friends of mine who were in relationships seemed to spend an inordinate amount of time stressing over whether they'd gotten a good enough gift for their significant others, or whether their significant others had gotten the message that they really needed to do something significant for valentine's, and everyone seemed to be making these grand gestures not because they genuinely wanted to celebrate the relationship, but because they knew that their significant others would be angry and sad if they didn't do enough. Guilt's a pretty terrible reason for a romantic gesture.
I don't know why, but it wasn't until this year that i realized that the reason why i hate valentine's as a holiday is the same reason why i hate new year's as a holiday and why i don't particularly care for fireworks; they're all about hype (and i am profoundly anti-hype). I mean, fireworks can be pretty, if i don't expect them, but the reality of fireworks is never as beautiful as everyone seems to think they will be. And the pressure to do something sufficiently celebratory on new year's, to make sure you're doing something during that first hour that you want to keep doing throughout the year, seems to dwarf most attempts to celebrate the occasion.
Valentine's, similarly, seems like a holiday that many of us have built up so much in our heads that the reality can't ever compete. Not that valentine's is at all connected to reality anyway. The fact that you're not seeing anyone on the 13th doesn't seem to keep you from being mysteriously disappointed when you don't kiss anyone on the big day o' love. And sure, your girlfriend forgot your birthday or your boyfriend keeps saying he doesn't want to bother with valentine's, but you'll still get that bunch of flowers, right?
OK, maybe not.
The additional problem with valentine's, however, is this--assuming you're in a long-term relationship...what the heck were you doing the other 364 days of the year, that you need a commercialized free-for-all of hearts, flowers, and candy just to remember to tell your significant other that you care?
The only cure i've ever found to national-hype-blues is to spend the day doing something you'd want to do anyway, no matter what day it was. I turn into a royal b**** for 8 hours if i don't get to hang out with friends on new year's, usually quaker friends down in the DC area. The reality of catching up friends and bonding effectively drowns any lingering temptation to pay attention to the holiday that prompted the party. This may be the first year i've ever been able to accomplish that for feb. 14th, however.
So now i can't help but wonder--is there anyone who really genuinely enjoys valentine's day? Or are we all just going through the motions, taking note of the holiday not because we enjoy it, but because we still feel we ought to? |
|
| |
|
Read 1 - Post |
| |
| Use your words, children. |
|
|
| 09:30pm 10/02/2009 |
| |
mood: thoughtful music: Jonatha Brooke - No Net Below
|
Before, i said that reading pounced ads was giving me a new perspective on a few things. Well, here's another (kind of a reapeat comment, but oh well). Think of it as making up for lost time (which it probably would be, if i had anything approaching a regular schedule for posts).
Some weeks ago, i heard a pick up artist remark on the different kinds of ways that one person can attempt to initiate a social connection with a stranger--approaches, i gather they call them (not without good reason). There are many things that often concern me about the methodologies of your average pick up artists, but this particular observation struck a chord with me. He said that approaches, on a general rule, fall on a spectrum between extremely low-risk (things that most people will respond to positively, such as asking a stranger for the time) and extremely high-risk (things that most people will respond to negatively, such as asking a stranger if they want to go screw). He also observed that as a general rule, the higher the risk, the higher the potential reward. Ask for sex on the spot, and almost everyone will turn you down, but if someone responds positively, you get everything you want. Ask for the time, and most people will tell it to you, but that's about as far as the conversation goes, unless you throw out something else.
So what's the point of that?( Read more... ) |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| Now there's a statement we never want to witness from Barbara Bush. |
|
|
| 06:25pm 10/02/2009 |
| |
mood:  Miffed music: Patti Griffin - You Never Get What you Want
|
It's amazing how much inspiration i can take, just from a respected friend saying that i write interesting stuff and should post more. Inspiration and just a bit of nerves, knowing that a person or two is actually listening now. Nothing quite like a nice ego boost in the morning, is there?
Every so often, i go back and read through the profiles and ads of folks on a furry personals site called pounced.org. I know better than to expect miracles of any personals site, these days. Nevertheless, reading through posts from places like that has given me some odd insights into the way i think about sex and love from time to time (i feel a soapbox or two coming on). One of them is this: Your sexuality is not a political statement.
Sadly, i've heard all to many people of late describe their sexual or romantic preferences in ways that seem to say just that. It seems to happen most often among folks who are militantly mono- or polyamorous, or who are miltiantly bisexual, but i've heard it in many different forms. It sounds to me as if what they're saying is that it's not about their preferences; it's about what's most fair, or most morally appropriate, or most loving, for them to prefer.
So let's just be clear here: there is no best kind of relationship.
You're not polyamorous because you're ness selfish or more honest than the rest of us; you're polyamorous because you're happiest when you're free to carry on multiple simultaneous relationships, and when you're not under pressure to be everything for your partner(s).
You're not monoamorous because you're more faithful or forthright than the rest of us; you're monoamorous because you're happiest when you can focus your attention on just one relationship, and when you know that you're enough for your partner all by yourself.
You're not bisexual or pansexual because you're less prejudiced than the rest of us, limiting our selections to just one gender; you're bisexual or pansexual because you've been attracted to folks of different genders before, so you know you can be attracted to folks of different genders again.
You aren't straight because you're more natural or normal or than the rest of us, playing with crazy combinations; you're straight because you've never met a person of your own gender who pushes your buttons, and the older you get, the less likely you are to do so in the future.
You're not gay because you're more well-adjusted than those rest of us, still stuck on heterosexual mores; you're gay because you've never met a person of another gender who turns you on, and you're old enough that you're willing to bet you never will.
None of us have any control about who or what turns us on; neither, i believe, can any of us decree what kinds of relationships will make us feel well-loved or stifled or used.
I understand the desire to celebrate your own sexual identity, and to recognize that you've found the best way to be true to yourself. But i also firmly believe that love and sex aren't about doing what's "right". The important part isn't whether you're being fair or moral; it's whether you and your partner(s) are getting what you need as well as enough of what you want to feel satisfied and well cared for.
The only political points you can earn here is for being honest with yourself and your partner(s) about what you want; there's really no high ground to be had after that. And while i recognize that we still live in a society with a very clear default sexual inclination (straight and monoamorous until proven otherwise), that doesn't free you from the responsibility to keep questioning who you are, nor does it make you more yourself if that default turns out to be what's right for you.
[sighs] OK, yes, i know that was quite a rant. But really people--can't we just say 'this is what i want' without tagging on that snippy little 'and you suck if you don't agree'? |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| quaker pagans are quakers who are pagan |
|
|
| 11:02am 07/11/2008 |
| |
A lot of thoughts have been roiling around in my head lately; i'll try to separate them out into separate posts for the sake of clarity.
A friend (finally!) applied for membership some time ago, and the process of the meeting seeking clearness to grant that membership has been...tumultuous, to say the least. In particular, a quote from the minutes of out last Meeting for worship with a concern for business:
"Her clearness committee found her clear for membership, although there was significant discussion of her living at a distance and of her having pagan beliefs as well as quaker beliefs....They also have confirmed with [name withheld] that she is no longer a member of a pagan coven."
Now, i've known for a while that my meeting can be stodgy about folks who are members of other faith communities, although they seem to have missed that the coven she belonged to was less on the scale of a church and more on the scale of a bible group (which they would not have taken issue with anyone belonging to), and also that they seem to have remembered the part about quakers not generally belonging to other faith communities while forgetting that the reasons behind it are more important than the membership itself. Perhaps more on that later. I gather that the committee in charge of membership is still fussing about the fact that she is still pagan, of course, and that while she's not currently doing anything with her coven, she is still a founder and someone who might or might not get involved with them again one she returns to the area, but that's not at the heart of what's bothering me.
The part that bothers me most here is that i see us falling back into the old pattern of assuming that pagan beliefs, far more than beliefs of much of any other major category, are inherently non-quaker beliefs. For some reason we don't have nearly this level of discomfort with quakers whose beliefs are flavored with buddhism, taoism, christianity, judaism...only paganism and nontheism seem to inspire this level of resistance.
At what point did we decide that there are right and wrong ways to view the Divine among quakers? And what is it about paganism that is so much more threatening to Friends beliefs than any other concept of the Divine? |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| Christian Acceptance in a Universalist Setting |
|
|
| 01:45pm 28/08/2008 |
| |
mood: mildly irritated music: Madonna - Like it or Not
|
It's not uncommon for Friends of all stripes to say that they have a hard time talking about their faith experience in meeting. When i hear it from Christ-centered Friends, however, i admit that my feelings are somewhat more mixed than they are when i hear it from other flavors of Quakerism.
I believe very strongly that we should all be able to talk pretty frankly about our faith experience in Meeting and feel supported and listened to. I know very well what it is to feel like you can't talk about God in anything but the most vague universal terms for fear of someone who doesn't share your flavor of quakerism being offended, and no one should have to feel like that. It stings, and it offends my tender sensibilities. After all, the whole idea behind a universalist faith is that everyone's experiences (within reason, of course) are welcome and respected. And i feel clear that part of the process struggling to build a positive supportive environment for my quaker pagan-ness is supporting others as they struggle to build a positive supportive environment for their experiences of the Divine. When one of us is excluded, it makes a less supportive environment for us all.
At the same time, there's this little voice inside me saying, "You've got some bible study happening in the children's programs, you've got folks standing up in meeting to talk about their christian experiences of christian holidays, you've got biblical references popping up from time to time in epistles, you've got some Friends wandering around saying that yours is the only real Quaker faith experience and everyone else isn't truly Quaker...Just how much more do you really need before you start to feel accepted?"
It's not that i don't care, or that i think discrimination against Christ-centered Friends is at all OK; it's just that i imagine this is how some Friends of color must feel when they hear whites talking about the pain of being discriminated against on the basis of race. It matters; of course it matters. But i think some Christ-centered Friends really don't realize just how good they've got it. And i feel like some of the complaints about discrimination against Christ-centered Friends boils down to some Christ-centered Friends (not by any stretch of the imagination all or even most) struggling with the fact that they can't count on the same privileges that they once could. I mean really--as a pagan Friend, my faith is almost never given any kind of public mention and never to children, i may have to struggle to get access to the building for events specific to my flavor of Quakerism, i've got convergent and programmed Friends around who tell me that i'm not really Quaker and (in the case of Friends from the more Programmed branches) that i may be bound for hell because i'm not Christian, and i have to worry about my meeting making an issue of my faith experience if i attempt to join a meeting. is it such an imposition on Christianity that we ask for Christmas parties to go back to being 12th Month parties, if the programming doesn't change at all?
This is not meant to be a swipe at our Christ-centered Friends. I love them dearly, and i respect where they're coming from. I just think there are ways for Christianity to be part of the picture of unProgrammed Quakerism without being in the middle of the picture and bigger than everything else.
To quote Ani Difranco, "Baby, you know i still love you, But how dare you complain to me?" |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| And i don't want to think about what happens when the outfits go in the washing machine. |
|
|
| 01:15pm 07/08/2008 |
| |
mood:  tired music: Moxy Fruvous - Gulf War Song
|
Lately, i've developed a new theory. Well, OK, so basically it's just a metaphor, but i spend so much time with art and poetry that metaphor is very important to me.
To the basically polyamorous-inclined person, having more than one relationship is like having more than one outfit. You may only wear one at a time (or maybe two if you're feeling bold), but that doesn't mean you won't want to wear different ones on different occasions, or that you like one any less for sometimes wearing another. And really, why should your enjoyment of a pair of jeans and a t-shirt get in the way of your enjoyment of a formal evening gown, or a kilt and tunic, or even a pair of jeans and a t-shirt of some other color, so long as you have room in your closet and your life for them all? And wouldn't your life be limited if you always wore the same one every day?
For a polyamorous person, i think 'available' means 'can get sexually or romantically involved with new people without hurting any existing partner's feelings'.
To the basically monoamorous-inclined person, having more than one relationship is like having more than one washing machine. Sure, you could, but once you've got one that does the job, the others just seem superfluous and wasteful, especially since you've probably only got one hookup for a washing machine and you'll have to spend a lot of time moving the connections over and recalling the differences in settings every time you want to use a different one. And if you've got one machine hooked up and you're looking for a second one, it begs the question--what's wrong with the one you're got that it isn't doing what you need it to do, and is it really worth keeping if it doesn't meet your needs?
For a monoamorous person, i think 'available' means 'does not currently have any current romantic or sexual ties to another partner'.
I'm not saying this to imply in any way that one way of thinking is more legitimate than the other (though i recognize where i fall on that spectrum). Neither do i think that either is a better way to conduct a relationship, or that either implies any flaw on the part of those who are in that relationship. Both kinds of relationships require a lot of trust and honesty and work, and i think we make both choices out of both a desire to have what we most want and a desire to take care of our partners.
All i'm trying to say is that it seems like there's a basic disconnect here, one that we tend to talk around as if we all see relationships in the same way. We all of us--monoamorous, polyamorous, and any other combination or variation--need to be careful to talk about our preferences in ways that don't invalidate what others do. |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| Yes, but only in a theoretical sense. |
|
|
| 01:41am 27/07/2008 |
| |
mood: contemplative music: Dar Williams - I'll Miss You Til' I Meet You
|
Why do i spend as much time as i do writing about love and sex, when my life is almost completely devoid of any practical instances of either? The world may never know.
Lately, it seems to me like i've seen an awful lot of online tests and surveys and such that ask this one question: "Does everyone have a one true love?" That wouldn't bother me, except that it's almost always posed as a yes or no question. I haven't had a yes or no answer to it in ages.
Do i believe that everyone has someone else out there, somewhere, that is absolutely perfectly suited to them in every way, shape, and form? Technically, yes. Considering the incredible variety of folks out there, and the sheer number of them, and the nature of people themselves, it seems entirely likely out there that there is someone out there who is absolutely everything that you need and nothing that you don't. And the story of Plato's (it was Plato, wasn't it?) of us as beings who were separated from our other halves has a certain appeal to me. I like to think that on some instinctive, deep spiritual level, we remember our other halves and search forever for a return to that original connection. And i like to think that if you ever found that person, you'd recognize each other almost instinctively and you'd find it awfully difficult to find anything to argue about.
But here's the thing--there are six billion people in the world today. Just think about that for a second--you're talking about a number so big, you probably can't see it all in one gasp. I doubt if there are that many blades of grass in your lawn (if you have one). Can you imagine trying to find one specific blade of grass on your lawn? Worse yet, most of us don't even meet a fraction of that world population over the course of our entire lives. You probably have a better chance of winning the lottery several times over than you do of finding your one true love. If any of us ever do, it's probably through divine intervention.
The overwhelming majority of people, when they settle down long term with someone, maybe marry, they haven't found their other halves. Remember when i said i thought that we remember that other half, that "one true love", as it were, on an instinctive, deep spiritual level? I think that most of us, when we settle down permanently with someone, we find someone who reminds us of that other half. I think that poly people find several someones that embody different aspects of that other half. That doesn't mean that those other loves are any less precious for not being the love. It just means that maybe there's something more than just loneliness behind than yearning, and something more to our relationships than just comfort and lust. |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| tabloid media and voyeurism |
|
|
| 01:40am 05/01/2008 |
| |
mood: miffed music: The Police - Every Breath You Take
|
While flipping channels this evening, i noticed that one of the top stories for the news today is...you guessed it...Britney Spears' current parental custody woes. My gosh, words cannot express the gratitude i feel for the news media who...well, ok, maybe they can. *clears throat* Yes, well.
When did we start th9inking that we have the right to know about some pop star's family issues that have nothing to do with us? I know why people think it's interesting. Most people love gossip, even if they have a tough time admitting it, and famous people are familiar enough to us that we feel some interest in their personal lives. Also, we live in a society that thinks professional entertainers make good role models.
The trouble, i think, is that i have a completely different standard for what should or should not be news. My standard is, if it doesn't enlighten people or inspire them to improve their lives or even just warn them of an important potential danger, i don't want to hear about it. Do i approve of racism, public drunkenness, or child abuse? No, but i don't see how i am in any way bettered by knowing that an actor or pop star is struggling with them.
The media, by contrast, is driven much more by what they think will get people's attention without pissing off any corporate backers, media watchdog groups (many or most of them hyperconservative, but that's another story), steady sources of easy information (like the government), and the FCC. Doesn't matter if people need to know. It only matters if people want to know and it won't cause the station trouble. They have no financial incentive to worry about the social mores of their news reporting, and some significant incentive to ignore them.
What concerns me about that is this: First off, as interesting as that sensationalized tabloid stuff may be to many, we are talking about someone's life. Several someones, really, including, in this case, a couple of kids. What chance of a healthy childhood do you have if you can't get a little privacy? What chance of a healthy adulthood? We like to know what's going on with each other, but everyone needs a little space to pull on our comfy, whatever clothes, go out, and do whatever-ish things without the rest of the world offering a running commentary. I can't help but wonder how many marriages, relationships, and families have been ruined by the constant pressure to put on a happy sunny face in front of the media. And this kind of reporting encourages a twisted sort of symbiotic relationship between tabloids and paparazzi, who sell anything they can get, and publicists and some entertainers, who come to believe that this sort of sensationalism is the way to advance their careers. And the more we hear this stuff, the more we start thinking we have a right to know about this actor's divorce and that one's conviction for DUI.
The truth is, no matter how much folks might like to think otherwise, Britney Spears isn't paid to be a role model. She's paid to sing and dance. And the proceedings that i have the right to know about are the ones where my life is directly impacted. If she presents a danger to folks on my neighborhood, or if there are issues of plagiarism or copyright infringement that i should know about, tell me. If her singing and dancing has messages in it that could be damaging for the kids around me, let's talk about it. Otherwise, she has a right to control who knows what about her life. And i reserve the right to not hear about it. |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| The trials and tribulations of cross-country love |
|
|
| 11:38am 22/10/2007 |
| |
mood: contemplative music: Sarah Harmer - "Almost; KT Tunstall - "Other Side of the World"
|
Someone very special to me recently posted his thoughts on his struggles to find a lasting romantic relationship in the furry community. In fact, his exact words were,
"The cuteones are single for a reason, the responsible ones arent so much when it comes to staying in contact, the perfect ones live on the other side of the freakin planet and dont want to move, or wont move."
I don't think he knows that i sometimes lurk his lj, nor do i have reason to believe he's aware of mine. I'd comment on his, except that our relationships is still in something of an amorphous state right now, tending towards romantic but with no clear boundaries, and i'm afraid that any comment there would reflect too heavily on that relationship. I mean, it relates...but not in every respect.
This journal has for a long time been a place for me to put thoughts i don't have another outlet for, thoughts that are running around my head and won't leave me alone. So it seems a prime out-of-the-way place to put my thoughts on his concerns. If i'm wrong and he does know about and/or read this lj... *sighs* ...well, i'll cross that bridge when i come to it. I guess it would be only fair, in some sense, and at least not quite so public as a reply in his lj would have been.
I make no assumptions about which of these categories he lists i fall into, though i suppose i have my hopes.
I think it's inevitable to encounter some folks who are either single for good reason (because they want to be or, often, because they're really not ready for any kind of serious relationship), and some folks that you want to hear from a lot more often than you do. I can't help with that. Heck, i've been there. I spent the last week worrying because i hadn't heard from this fellow and stubbornly resisting the urge to contact him for a while, mostly because i knew his life was turning upside down and he probably had good reason not to have emailed, so i didn't want to become just one more thing for the boy to deal with.
With perfect folks living on the other side of the freaking planet, or even, to skip the melodrama, the other side of the freaking country...
The furry community is an international one, in ways that most communities aren't, and that is both our blessing and our burden. We form connections, often deep emotional and spiritual ones, with folks far away from us. In how many other communities can a pennsylvanian claim close friendships with brits, germans, or aussies? The net allows us to find a close kinship with folks we can't easily reach otherwise. The fact that we build these close connections with others all over the place gives us a certain emotional stability, since furriness is still unusual enough that it's hard to find other furs locally. Well, it is unless you live near a furry nexus like los angeles or philadelphia or certain areas of florida. That ability to find emotional closeness, even when physical closeness isn't easy and our local mundanes are giving us weird looks, is very much a blessing for us.
Thing is, when you start seeking a mate within the community, it also poses a big challenge. Of the available people you meet, the vast majority will live far away from you, and after college, most of the most stable ones will have settled into the communities that they live in. For most of those folks, moving is a big step and not to be undertaken lightly. There are lots of things that can go wrong with it, after all.
I think long distance relationships, at least in the short run, are prettymuch par for the course for furry love. And that means a lot of travel for everyone. They're tiring, yes, and expensive. That doesn't mean they can't yield something good.
The truth is, there are no perfect people out there. We are all, as my mother once said (quoting a film, i think), "broken in our different ways," and relationships, to me, are as much about compromise and adjustment as they are about hearts and flowers and moonlit nights. Being in the "wrong" place is part of that. The question i have to keep asking myself in a long distance relationship (just like any other relationship) is, is this particular relationship still giving me something that's worth the fuss of maintaining it?
For my part, with this particular relationship, the answer continues to be yes. I get overwhelmed when i try to think too far into the future, so for now i'm just concentrating on the time between now and next summer, when i might have a chance to see this person in...er, person, since at that point anything could happen. Even with the best results in the world on both our parts, i'd still expect some time spent flying back and forth, each of us finding a way into the other's daily life, before we started to look at one of us moving. I'm not ruling out the possibility that i would move under those circumstances, though i'm not exactly thrilled at the prospect. Still, even with the geography, this is more relationship than i've ever had before, and i can't deny that i feel very strongly; so much so that it scares me sometimes. Before we started talking, i was accustomed to only being atracted to folks who weren't attracted to me, and i had every expectation of living my life mateless. Now...i'm not so sure.
It strikes me as a bizarre sort of confluence that right around when we started talking, my red mini rosebush started growing its first bud since i got it last march. The flower started to open last week.
I guess i'm just trying to be realistic, and not get so far ahead of myself that i start to panic. The first step is to keep talking, and to see the boy next summer. Stuff may change after that...but i don't have to know what that is, or what i'll do about it, just yet. |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| How not to reply to a personals ad |
|
|
| 07:51pm 17/08/2007 |
| |
mood: hopeful music: Barbara Kessler, "The Date"
|
Some time ago, i placed an ad on pounced.org. I know, i know. I'm really not exactly seeking so much as i am exploring and leaving myself open to possibilities. That's not the point.
The point is, i seem to get an awful lot of responses that tend towards the same thing--"Hey, you sound really interesting and cool. I'd love to talk sometime." Which is great in and of itself, don't get me wrong. The part that frustrates me sometimes is that these folks, with only one or two exceptions, seem to fall into the same pattern. They:
--have ads themselves, but those ads are usually no more than one paragraph, maybe two or three if they have no more than two sentences in each. Most of the ad is taken up with phrases like "i have a great sense of humor", "i'm looking for friends or maybe more", as well, as cheerful but standardized requests for someone to message them.
--Seem, despite their expressed interest in talking to me, to have an awful lot of trouble coming up with anything they'd like to talk about, via email or IM.
Don't get me wrong. I recognize that i bear some of the responsibility for carrying the conversation. It is a cooperative exercise, after all. And i do try to supply some questions and comments based on what little i know about, and i try to make the whole process as painless as i can. It's just...well, my ad is rather lengthy. I did that in the hopes that it would provide more of a window into who i am, and perhaps spark some conversation in anyone who might reply. I figure anyone who replies to me must have seen something that tickled their fancy. But i don't know what that would be until someone asks or comments. And if there's very little for me to go on in the other person's ad...well, that's not going to get me very far. It's like having a random stranger walk up to you on the street and say "Hey, you're cool. Talk to me." Uhhhh...
I could say "So, what sparked your interest in me?" Except that still feels like the height of vanity. Kind of like saying, "Hi. Thank you for messaging me. You may now proceed to tell me all about how great i am."
I suppose it could be construed as equally vain, expecting someone else to ask me about something from my ad (and really, that's only if there isn't much of anything to ask about in theirs, or if the conversation seems to be dragging). But i'm not really asking for compliments (though they're always nice); just maybe a comment or question, you know?
So in that spirit, i offer some examples of good personals responses, in my opinion. These aren't specific to my ad, and are simply meant to demonstrate some stuff i think would probably generate more conversation (with some follow-up, of course--one exchange does not a conversation make). If possible, i recommend using a few such questions together; that way if one doesn't pan out, the conversation doesn't grind to a halt. A few suggestions:
--If someone mentions that they like to read a lot: "So what you what are you reading right now? Is it any good?"
--If someone mentions some bands that they like, and that you like, too: "I love that you like jefferson airplane. So which is your favorite album?"
--If someone mentions a genre of music that they like, and that you like, too: "I like fusion jazz too, especially spyro gyra; i was really impressed by their new album. Have you heard it?"
--If someone has a really unusual picture up: "that's a fascinating picture you have up. So how is it that you came to identify with boll weevils?"
--If someone mentions that their religion is important to them: "I've never met a hassidic jewish person before. How does that work?"
--If they mention a gathering you attended: "I went to conifur as well. Wasn't that parade fantastic?"
That's just a place to start. And people who get such questions, if any of them (or anyone at all) is reading this--don't answer with just one brief sentence. Use that question as an opportunity to get more in-depth about your interests, and maybe ask a few questions of your own. Just a thought, you know? *smiles* |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| species and society |
|
|
| 11:11am 21/06/2006 |
| |
mood:  calm music: Depeche Mode, "Agent Orange"
|
From time to time, among furries, scalies, and other transspecies people, the question of surgical transformation comes up--if medical technology existed to change your body to to match what you know you really are, inside, would you want it?
Let me preface my thoughts by explaining just what i mean by transspecies and furry at present. Have you ever heard of transsexual,s who are one gender on the outside and another on the inside? It's like that. I'm a dragon on the inside, and a human on the outside. People often use the expression 'man trapped in a woman's body' or some such when talking about transsexuals; i prefer not to, since the word 'trapped' implies that i'm trying to escape.
I don't know that i can explain what it is that marks me a dragon; it's different for everyone. I believe i was born this way. I've had to learn, in many instances, how to act human. My biological clock thinks i'm going to live for centuries. I have ghost impressions of limbs that aren't there sometimes. I can't walk across certain bridges without some part of me longing to jump off, spread my wings, glide over the river...
Faced with the question of whether i would change this body for my natural one, however, i'd have to say no. Not here, anyway, mostly for practical reasons.
My natural form, the one i would be wearing if i weren't human, is about the size of a small house cat. And the world just isn't built to accommodate anyone that small, even with wings. A lot of doors would be too heavy to budge, clothes would have to be sewn especially for me or given up, and typing and writing would become full body exercises. I couldn't drive. And given the rarity of dragons my size among the furry community, i'd be essentially giving up even the vaguest hope of a love life (not that i have one at present anyway).
What's more, i could expect an enormous amount of discrimination. Our society has a hard enough time accepting people with different colors of skin or whose life partners are of the same gender or who buck what remains of our gender roles. Can you imagine people trying to deal with humanoid foxes, or little house cat-sized dragons in the workplace? We're just not ready for that.
If i could shift back and forth, i'd do it in a heartbeat. But much as i may miss my wings, i don't miss them enough to give up my career, my meager chances of love, my ability to function independently, and and some of my friends. |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| furries and YAFs, YAFs and furries |
|
|
| 12:05pm 20/06/2006 |
| |
mood: content music: Indigo Girls, "The Wood Song"
|
Just got back from Anthrocon this past weekend. Man, did i miss it, during those years when i couldn't go.
Thinking about it, though, i realize that in many ways, the AC furry community and the FGC AYF community feed two different but complimentary parts of me. And i forget how important they both are when i'm away from one.
My YAF folks have a kind of ongoing, determined love that humbles me every time i encounter it. Among them, i truly feel like i'm loved almost unconditionally, like i can trust them with whatever parts of myself i need. Heady stuff that. Around them, i feel beautiful, but in a soul-deep kind of way rather than the usual external one. It's almost like my friends there think of me as beautiful because they can't conceive of someone they love being anything but beautiful. And there, i enjoy a rare freedom with my space, since most of the ones i know maintain that nothing is sexual unless you define it to be so. Some of my best backrubs ever, both given and received, have been among FGC YAFs.
Furries share that joy in the physical, and can be similarly touchy-feely at times. What my furry folks do uniquely well, however, is make me feel truly drop-dead gorgeous. It's rare, i think that you find yourself among folks who can be frankly admiring without putting any expectations into the mix--just 'wow, you're pretty' as a statement of fact, not a request for reciprocation. I've always had a lot of respect for anyone who can be that open about their attractions, since i've never been able to. Among them, i sometimes feel that i could show up in a feed bag and sweatpants, and they'd still think i looked good. And the furries i've known tend to feel that even a repeated glance can indicate openness, which can be a mite wearing at times--i have to be careful not to send out signals i don't mean--but mostly, since they do understand the concept of meaningless flirtation, just acts as a major ego massage.
Feeling beautiful, and feeling loved. They're such simple things, like two halves of a generalized appreciation coin. Most of the time I feel blessed to have both in my life, albeit not at the same time. |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| i confuse current standards of sexual conventionality |
|
|
| 11:02am 18/05/2006 |
| |
mood: thoughtful music: Sarah Harmer, "Almost"
|
Lately, i've been thinking a lot about the nature of my sexual boundaries. I could explain how the subject came up, but really, it's kind of a long story. In particular, i've been thinking about what leads people to engage in, or not engage in, threesomes. I've decided that the question of whether i would ever do one (assuming some bizarre alternate universe in which the opportunity presented itself) is a lot more complicated than i'd thought.
I don't object to doing threesomes. I object to having casual sex.
See, for me, sex is an act that's not only physically intimate; it's emotionally intimate. I'm giving my partner(s) a direct line, however temporarily, into my needs and desires that leave fewer illusions between us. I'm pretty private about my desires; so how could i share them with someone i don't trust implicitly? And how could i trust someone unless i had a long-term relationship with him/her? It could be a friend, but then sex also usually requires some shared attraction and, for me, a gradual buildup of sexual intimacy. Part of that whole trust thing. And what's a close friend with continued sexual intimacy, if not a (not necessarily exclusive or primary) lover? Perhaps i'd feel differently if i were more sexually active. For the sake of sense of identity, i hope not.
A lot of people seem to answer the 'would you' question 'yes, if both partners were members of my preferred gender'. Very few people that i know of answer it 'yes, if both partners were in a long-term relationship with me'. I guess people just tend to think of sexual multiples as if they exist independent of any sort of serious polyamory.
Above and beyond that, do i seriously see myself ever engaging in a threesome? No. Finding one partner for a healthy long term relationship is a challenge all its own. Finding two such people, most likely bi men (since i have yet to be attracted to a woman) that are not only well-suited to me but well-suited to each other...well, it's a pretty serious stretch on the bounds of probability, especially for a little drak as sexually and romantically inactive as i am. I'd be surprised if i so much as saw the inside of a twosome in my lifetime; the chances of a threesome are astronomical.
Nevertheless, i like knowing not only what my boundaries are, but why. |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| governmental indulgence, anyone? |
|
|
| 09:49am 07/04/2006 |
| |
mood:  cynical
|
Am i the only one out there who's looked at our current us justice system and thought that the whole thing seems...well...awully capitalist?
No, i don't mean democratic, republican, western,. or what have you. I mean capitalistic. Very commerce oriented.
I mean, when i hear officials (and many ordinary citizens, for that matter) talk about sentencing for crimes, they don't talk about what would help to redirect the offender, nor do they talk about what would heal the community or the victims. They talk about what a crime is worth. Worth in dollars? Maybe. Sometimes. And sometimes worth in years. Hence the expression 'pay your debt to society'. Apparently all forgiveness is for sale, if you don't mind buying it with a few years of your life.
Are you willing to admit the crime and say you're sorry? All the better. How many years' discount is an apology worth?
It scares me. It sickens me. But somehow, as thoughts go, it doesn't really surprise me as much as i feel it should. I mean, we sell everything else in this ridiculous country. We may as well sell atonement. |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
desteredra's journal