“Can I tie you?” he asked and I readily agreed. I was on Sex Camp and he was holding these beautiful bundles of burgundy rope in his hands. This would be my first time experiencing Shibari rope bondage. I sat between his legs with my back to him and he held my body close to his before shoving me forwards and thrusting my head down between my legs. He forced my hands up behind my back and immediately my arousal tingled in my cunt and nipples. I felt the rope rough against my wrists as he bound them together behind my back. He brought the rope around my body pulling me close, pressed against him again, his breath on my neck as the rope bit into the flesh of my breasts. My tits bulged out between his bindings and people began to mill over to watch us. He trailed the end of the rope slowly and deliberately over my inner thigh as he pulled the bindings tighter around my body, tying knot after knot with a speed and skill I’ve never seen.

“Do you like the feel of rope around your neck?” he whispered in my ear and I nodded and squeaked out a “yes” I was loosing the power to vocalise as I was lost in a semi-trance of sexual arousal. I was so aroused that my surroundings vanished and it was only he and I, his hands and his rope all over me. He bound my legs together ankle to hip and then all the way to the knee, repeating this on both sides, my legs forced to be spread open. A spectator leaned forward to touch me and he stopped them “if you ever touch someone I am tying without consent it will be your last mistake my friend” he whispered and the man’s hand shrank from my vision, reprimanded, lost in the world that didn’t seem to exist to me anymore. My cunt was swollen and throbbing as he snaked the rope around my neck in a loop and plaited it deftly in front of me as a leash, a beautiful hand made leash that chaffed against my skin with a subtle pressure that implied this was a soft introduction to what he could do with me if I wished it. As he untied me that night I realised I did not want it to end as he took the last rope from my body he yanked it tight and hard across my breasts one last time “and that was me being nice” he breathed in my ear and I instantly wanted him to do the whole thing again harder, longer, more, more, more.

The next night I approached another Shibari expert and he showed me how to put him in rope cuffs and then bind them to his legs. I slapped him twice in the face. Once soft, the next a little harder. I wanted to backhand him hard and see blood on his lip, to lick it off. I wanted him to slap me back. When I had finished learning the cuffs I took the ropes and looked him in the eyes. “I want you to tie me, now.” He did, and it was possibly the most erotic thing I have done without taking off my clothes. There’s plenty of potential for it to be the most erotic thing I have done ever once I do it naked. I spent two thirds of it on the edge of orgasm without even needing to be touched directly on my cunt, or so much as a kiss exchanged.

Oh rope… where have you been all my life?

This article and comments shows that at this time there is contentious debate where there needs to be collaboration. To put it succinctly though rather reductive of course, we have anti-slavery organizations baying for the end of the whole sex industry because of the atrocities of forced prostitution and slavery on one hand. Then we have sex workers who have chosen prostitution of their free will and are fighting for not only sex workers rights and safety within the industry but also for the right to their chosen career also and larger cultural respect and acceptance. You can see easily where the conflict lies.

This is essentially what is problematic about the prostitution industry. As it stands it is deeply criminal and exploitative within a significantly large part of the sex industry. Those who work long-term trying to protect and support women having this experience unsurprisingly have very negative feelings about prostitution and so they apply this to the whole industry because they, by the nature of their work, only deal with the awful parts. In their urgent desire to end abuse they will attack even those women who control their careers, have safe careers and respectful clients and have chosen to do this for themselves. Of course, these women who have made consenting choices to be sex workers resent being told that their profession is exploiting them, that they are colluding with their exploiters and that they are complicit in the exploitation of other women.

Recently in Melbourne there was an issue here when the Victorian Roller Derby League (VRDL) chose Project Respect as their annual charity. Project Respect does a lot of great work helping women who want to exit the sex industry and supporting trafficked women in the illegal industry here. However, they also have a blanket philosophy that the sex industry must all be ended as they believe it is innately bad. In the words of the projects creator

Project Respect “So much harm, so much heart-ache. And for what? At so high a price, what is gained? What could be worth subjecting human beings to such suffering, to exploitation that has repercussions for years and years to come? Stripped back to its core, the answer is simple, though we rarely talk about it. Women and children are delivered up, in their millions, to make sure that some men never have to contemplate being without someone to fuck, when they want, how they want, whenever they want. So weak a reason, so high a cost.”

This totally denies CONSENTING workers autonomy and refuses to acknowledge them at all as wanting this line of work or having any right to earn money in the career of their choice. It is a false logic used very often to push an ulterior agenda. For example rape does not make all sex bad. Violence in marriage does not make all marriage bad. Rape and violent marriages are common but no one is saying all men and women must stop having sex and all men and women must stop getting married. Slavery does not make all prostitution bad and making this claim alienates consensual sex workers from anti-slavery efforts of which they truly are allies and not enemies. So a lot of the VRDL supporters who are consensual sex workers in the industry and their friends, family and supporters reacted to this choice of charity because it is anti prostitution as well as anti-slavery, thus it is anti consenting prostitutes unless they’re exiting the industry. It is a very sad that this charity lost support for a cause that needs as much as it can get simply because it will not relinquish its bigotry towards consensual sex work. Yes bigotry, a lot of bigotry comes from painful life experience. I hated men for a while in my 20’s because I had been abused and raped by two men and I knew this was not an uncommon female experience. I had to resolve that prejudice not by ignoring the issue of male on female abuse but by forcing myself to acknowledge that not all men do this and that my prejudice would only hinder change not help it. I needed to recognize that there were MANY men out there who abhorred these behaviors and would never treat a woman like that who did not deserve to be prejudged and hated. I had to see that if I acknowledge these men and worked with them I had a better chance of changing these cultural issues.

It continues to sadden me that the divide between these two groups grows ever bigger. This schism isn’t specific to Melbourne either it is an issue in USA and Europe as well. This issue pits two groups against each other, sex positive sex workers and advocates and organizations that help exploited sex workers get out, who actually have the same goals; to end the abuse of sex workers and women in the sex industry. The way it is right now.. the only people really loosing from this battle of advocate ideologies are sex workers… not the criminals and exploiters but the workers either willing or coerced.

Samantha Brick is crumbling under the onslaught of contempt her original article and response article, about being hated because she is beautiful, have inspired. I read them and I’ll admit I thought the first was a parody piece, a joke. I had a good laugh which slowly trailed off to awkward silence as it dawned on my this was for real.

 

I can’t say for sure if Samantha has experienced discrimination from women who were threatened by her looks, or perhaps her attitude about her looks or perhaps her penchant for using her looks to get things out of men professionally with regard to her career. I’d say it’s very possible that some women have resented her being more attractive than them and also strategically flirtatious (as she freely admits)  is true. I also imagine there are a number of other reasons she has been shunned that she has falsely attributed to female envy. I don’t know though and neither does Samantha. It’s all conjecture she has made from scenarios she assumes were discrimination based on the comforting words of friends who told her that a woman is ‘just jealous of you’. Honestly, Sam did need to ask herself, who would say when asked “I think it’s because you’re incompetent and obnoxious that you were passed over for promotion”.

 

My own mild contempt for the quality of the article put aside, I have witnessed women closing ranks and excluding and dismissing a beautiful woman. I was once visiting a domestic violence woman’s shelter and this gorgeous, tall, blond client was admitted with her beautiful child. She wasn’t supermodel beautiful but she was a head turner with that particularly luminous blond hair and long legs. The other women were quite cruel to her and unwelcoming. I recall one woman said to her directly “what have you got to complain about, you’re beautiful, you could get any man you wanted”.  I pointed out this was the beauty and the fairytale myth that a woman’s beauty can turn a beast into a prince charming. I defended ‘Beauty’ further saying that her prettiness or beauty wasn’t a shield from a violent partner, nor would it make that experience any less painful for her. In reality, with jealousy being such a strong component of abusive relationships it could well have exacerbated situations for her with jealous partners.  No one was convinced and they got incredibly hostile when ‘Beauty’ said in her own defence “being beautiful doesn’t make my life easier with men, for a start it seems to me mean there are more men that want to treat me like shit”. The group noticeably bristled as if what she had said was “more men want me than you because I am more beautiful than you uglies”. It had never occurred to me before that there was quite a large social downside to being that very standard beautiful “tall, blonde, shapely and ultra femme”. It does sound like a privileged whinge when you hear attractive people complain about being attractive but then again this woman was shunned and isolated in a place where women were generally trying to support each other and forging friendships because they recognised a common trauma.

Now whether or not Samantha is delusional or speaking uncomfortable truth that women don’t want to face about how we treat each other I’ve nevertheless been stunned that the reaction was so very hateful. I wouldn’t have thought about this silly article for more than a second if it weren’t for the quite vicious responses. Women were insulting her looks and incensed by her belief in her own attractiveness. Her vanity may be a little cringe worthy but I can’t imagine what would drive someone to send her vicious hate mail because of it. That seems to be a rather large overreaction. Women are angry about this article for what looks like four reasons

1) She said she is beautiful and they find her unattractive.

2) She said she was beautiful and whether she is or not they find her vanity an conjecture to be crass.

3) She said women are mean to beautiful women.

4) She wrote an article that makes her and other women look absurd and petty.

 

Now I think the article is self involved dross with a whole lot of vain conjecture. I think this assisted greatly in loosing sight of the kernel of truth she actually may have had. Regardless, the hate that is being directed at her seems unwarranted and telling. Wherever there are mass reactions this strong you’ve got to ask why? So ladies, what made you so angry with Sam? Here are my theories.

 

1) She said she is beautiful and they find her unattractive (so they want her to feel as unattractive as they feel she is).

2) She said she was beautiful and whether she is or not they find her vanity an conjecture to be crass (so they want to teach her a lesson for being conceited).

3) She said women are mean to beautiful women (and they know that this does happen, that maybe once in their life they indulged in a little malicious bitchy envy based behaviour and their embarrassed that she’s prodded their guilty spot).

4) She wrote an article that makes her and other women look absurd and petty (they feel their gender has been publicly held up for ridicule and they’re pissed with her for providing the opportunity).

 

The truth is we are savage towards women about their looks ugly beautiful or anywhere in between. Sam Brick is certainly complaining about something legitimate but in a way that alienates her from other women and so is almost completely pointless and ineffectual… it is also looking at only one side of the issue because that part relates to her and her deliberately using her looks to get ahead of less attractive women in her career.

I’ve been noticing a fair amount of critiquing women over the last 15 years I’ve been an adult. Some of it is shere misogyny and some of it is about cultural stuff that women ‘generally’ perpetuate against men and against other women and so is fair enough. We are not beyond reproach of course.

However, I’ve been thinking recently about this rather over used concept that women reject nice guys and so they deserve it when they end up with arseholes. I’ve been trying to place it in either the misogyny or the legitimate critique category and I’ve decided it can be in either under different circumstances. Most of the time it’s a myth perpetuated by guys who are bitter about being rejected. The guys saying this aren’t actually ‘nice guys’ they’re just bitter that they didn’t get the woman they wanted and they’re playing victim.

 

Often times, women do, without warrant, mistreat men who desire them because culturally we’re told men don’t have more sensitive feelings and if they do then they’re not a ‘real man’. This is women perpetuating misandry that denies men the full spectrum of emotions and equal respect for their emotions and feelings as women expect. **This is a cis gendered heterosexual issue as far as I have experienced and witnessed it so forgive me for talking strictly in those terms**

So let me break it down for you guys and gals…

A guy being bitter, resentful and malicious simply because he was rejected is not a nice guy, he is being an arsehole.

A guy feeling offended not because a woman rejected him but because she did so by insulting, humiliating and/or demeaning him is rightfully critiquing poor behaviour (unless his advances were insulting, humiliating and/or demeaning when in which case you get back what you give out huh?). However, using this to disparage all women is sexist and bigoted and so if you’re going to insult an entire gender based on a few individuals you are still not a nice guy.

A guy who is a woman’s friend simply because he wants to bone her and then stops being her friend and insults her as soon as he knows she’s not going to fuck him is not a nice guy.

A guy who is a woman’s reliable friend regardless of also having a massive crush on the woman so she manipulates and uses him when she is single as she dangles the possibility of a relationship in front of him like a carrot to a donkey is going to be offended when he discovers he has been played and she drops his friendship the minute she finds someone she does truly want. **NOTE TO GUYS. JUST ASK HER OUT RIGHT IF SHE WANTS TO HAVE SEX OR DATE YOU THEN MOVE ON TO FRIENDSHIP WHEN SHE SAYS NO**

A woman who won’t date a guy if she is not attracted to him is not making a mistake, she is doing him a favour. Do men really want women to just settle for them without having any sexual attraction and then eventually start to cringe at the idea of sex with their partner?

Really though, surely it’s best for these women who behave negatively towards men not to want to date you if they don’t respect you. You should be feeling relief not resentment when you get a malicious knock back because you DODGED A BULLET.  Plus, if you’re using these general examples to justify hating all women or thinking all women are bitches then she DODGED A BULLET even if she was a bitch to you because you are a sexist bigot. This is all the same nonsense as saying ALL men are arseholes just because SOME of them will play you with sweet words into the sack or they abandon their children. Some women treat men badly, some men treat women badly. Learn from it and remove these people from you circles of friends. There are plenty of truly good people out there if you bother looking for them.

I found this on Kane’s blog which is worth reading also on the topic from a man’s perspective that this myth is about male self respect. I found it to be pretty damn accurate.

 

Yesterday I posted a discussion I got into on Facebook about Open marriages. I probably pretty much said it all in that but I wanted to add one more thing.

If monogamous heterosexual marriage is so infinitely and innately more moral than any other kind why are their such high rates of domestic violence, sexual abuse and child abuse and neglect in traditional monogamous marriages? Not to mention that the MAJORITY of monogamous marriages will have to deal with adultery/extra marital sex one way or another in their relationship if it last more than 10 years. It is because monogamy and marriage as cultural things DO NOT make the people involved better people or better parents. That can only be the result of who the people involved are thus, the relationship structure is irrelevant. It is the individuals that count. Though many like to claim that heterosexual monogamaous marriage is better for children I assure you their is substantial evidence that the isolated nuclear family is far from ideal parenting. It is a cliché but it takes a village to raise a child because extended family and friend support can be of infinite value to parenting units. However, monogamous marriages can be excellent family units despite this if they are healthy, consensual, structured and respectful. As I said before so can open marriages or polyamorous marriages or polygamous marriages if they are healthy, consensual, structured and respectful. It is up to the parents how they structure their family and thier relationship and sexual monogamy does not have anything to do with people’s parenting ability. The two things are entirely unrelated.

The only advantage that healthy monogamous heterosexual marriages and family units have over other healthy non-heteronormative relationships is that they, and their children, do not have to suffer prejudice from the culture they live in.  They have the advantage and privilege of total social acceptance for their family. So those hegemonic heterosexual monogamous people who fight to maintain this advantage over others at a great cost to other families and their children’s welfare are the ones who are selfish and have disregard for the children they claim to have concern for.  It is actually solely in their own interests that they will inflict unnecessary harm on others with their prejudice in order to maintain their place at the top of an unjust hierarchy of who and how we are “permitted” to love culturally. They simply wish to retain for themselves the fallacious sense of social superiority, the manifestation and expression of which is prejudice and judgement of non-conforming family units without bothering to ever find out anymore about them other than that they are different to their own. With the malicious contempt they know that these different families are vulnerable to their self serving bullshit and that they can levy insults at them with impunity. They collude together to rob these families of their access to a cultural support networks that families dearly need and a rob them of a feeling of belonging in the world and they do it all without a shred of empathy or compassion for the effects of their behaviour on others.

In short. Fuck you, you don’t care one iota about my child or the children of these families. You are exploiting these children as a rhetorical device and putting their welfare and wellbeing at risk by perpetuating prejudice against their family units just so you don’t have to answer to your bigotry. How dare you use those who cannot defend themselves as your sheild. Have you no integrity whatsoever?

 

 

This post will be long but I must share it. These are the responses to a post a friend of mine on facebook made regarding a call for people in open marriages to share their stories.

 

Erica Bastow I cannot imagine many situations where an open marriage could actually HELP! Someone gets their heart broken, sooner or later. IMO if you want an open marriage, don’t be married…the whole concept of marriage is to give yourself to one person…not one person plus the occasional outsider!

 

Kathleen Donnafield I am forever confounded by the open marriage concept. Stupidity personafied!

 

MsLilithe Magdalene It’s not ofr everybody.

 

Liandra Dahl I have an open marriage and if an IQ test means anything I have an IQ of 138 so I don’t think that classifies me as stupid Kathleen. Marriage is what the two people in it choose to make it. For me an open marriage is a realistic and compassionate view of commitment and longevity. I also find it arousing to know my partner is with other people so it makes our sex life even better and does not detract from it. I have two very dear friends who are also in an open marriage and have been so for 15 years and are the happiest couple I have ever witnessed with the most excellent communication and trust skills I have witnessed in all my 32 years.

 

Kathleen Donnafield Whatever floats your boat honey. Why bother with marriage? Just have a free for all whenever you want it. I don’t know how to people can face each other with love and admiration and especially respect, knowing the other is not monogamous

 

Sam Rapien I’m somewhat baffled by your comments, Kathleen. All of the research in the field of evolutionary biology aside, not to mention the benefits society gives to marriages/civil unions which would be incentive alone to get married to someone you love, the truly baffling part is your belief that those who have chosen an open relationship/marriage is “stupidity personafied [sic].” Since the concept of loving more than one person is foreign to you it becomes “stupid” to live your life in such a manner? Then, when confronted with a rational answer to your post you respond with “Whatever floats your boat?” It appears to me that, because you don’t see the benefits to an open marriage or don’t understand why people would choose such an agreement then everyone that has is “stupid.” It’s the same kind of emotional logic that leads people who don’t understand evolution and its role in nature to then dismiss it as “stupid.”

 

To fill your own lack of understanding with emotional conclusions is the very definition of close minded. People engage in decisions and choices that I don’t necessarily see the benefit in my life but could see how it would work or be helpful for other people. Unfortunately, this appears to be lacking in many people who would rather jump to a belief or emotional reaction rather than using reason to come to an understanding.

 

I doubt anyone would be able to change your belief about open marriage any more than you are going to be able to make others think about the downside by calling those within open relationships “stupid.” However, I would encourage you to maybe understand how it might be beneficial and work for others.

 

Liandra Dahl Why bother with marriage? I wish to “bother with marriage” because I am committed longterm to love and support my spouse, to raise children together, to be there for my partner as emotional support, financial support, social support. I wish to bother with marriage because there SHOULD be so much more to marriage than forced sexual monogamy and in our marriage there is. We two people face each other and say I love and respect you not because we insecurely demand sexual monogamy from each other but because we love, admire and respect each other deeply. We trust that we are honest with each other and have very open lines of communication and boundaries around the “sexually open” component of our marriage. It is not a free for all and I find your language disrespectful. Perhaps your trouble understanding respect between two people is because you have none for others unless they think and behave just like you. Monogamous marriage is a valid choice and I respect it but so often it is deceptive, two people stand and face each other and say “I want you and no one else” and they’re lying to the one person they love most in the whole world. I don’t lie to my spouse and I don’t expect my spouse to only have desire for me. I don’t see love and desire as a zero sum game. I don’t see my desire for others reducing how desirable my spouse is or how much I love them and I don’t see my spouses desire for others as detracting from how desirable I am to my spouse or how much they love me.

 

MsLilithe Magdalene I love the analogy that when you have more than one child, your love for the previous children do not diminish as you have more – there is always more room in your heart for another child (well, that depends on the parent, and the situation as well.) But you get the idea. Same with partners. But it is not a “free for all” – it is about trust, and good communication and boundaries and respect. It is about being willing to sit with your own internal feelings of jealousy and not being good enough.

 

Kathleen Donnafield Don’t be baffled Sam; I simply believe it is sheer fallacy to take vows of marriage when in the back of one’s mind is the anything goes as long as both in the union agree. The fact that marriage vows seem to be needed to have children is so hypocritical when in all other respects, there is none (respect)

 

MsLilithe Magdalene This assumption that having an open relationship equals no respect is a fallacy. That is a projection of your own fears of how it would feel if you were in that situation.

 

Christina Page Kathleen- that’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it, but I think you should respect that of others. Personally, I don’t think that I could have an open marriage, it’s just not for me. However, I would never judge someone in an open marriage, and ya know what, they probably have a better marriage than I ever will! Here’s the thing- I think it’s really hard to be monogomous, and I have had truoble with it in the past. I like variety, as most humans do. From an evolutionary perspective, humans aren’t meant to only be with one person. So, I can’t really imagine only being with one person forever. However, I’m also jealous and hate the idea of an open marriage. So, where does that leave me? 1. single forever 2. cheating 3. bored sexually in my marriage (if im ever married) or 4. maybe once I’m more mature and less jealous, in an open marriage.

 

MsLilithe Magdalene Marriage also confers rights (hence the reason why gay marriage is such an important right to vote for) – rights on taxes, rights on hospital decisions and visitation, etc. etc. It’s saying “I am there for you no matter what”. Just because the two agree to allow love and enjoyment with other people does not take that away. I hear you Kathleen, conflating the energies of cheating in a monogamous marriage, with the agreements and energies of an open marriage – and they are just not the same.

 

Sam Rapien I am still baffled, Kathleen, as to how you believe that those who do not share your opinion (note the word “opinion” and not “truth”) are of lesser intelligence. I am baffled by your inability to understand that the way you live your life and the way others agree to live their’s are not subject to right and wrong, that it is simply a matter of what works best for you and your partner. I am baffled by your desire to post a dissenting opinion that is only backed by your own emotional beliefs yet you state it as some provable fact. I am baffled by your lack of respect for others’ opinions yet wave the respect flag in your defense of monogamous relationships. I am baffled by how you could honestly believe that everyone should fit into your cookie-cutter idea of what a strong, fulfilling, and loving relationship is. And now I am left baffled by your anger at everyone voicing THEIR opinions in a comment stream that you volunteered YOUR opinion in when it is clear you don’t understand how facebook works.

 

Erica Bastow I am baffled by people that play the “biological card,” to explain the validity of open marriage. Sure, biologically speaking, men were originally designed to spread their seed via multiple partners. BUT, by this same biological theory, women were designed to be with ONE partner…with someone who would protect her and her offspring. So it seems to me that since our MODERN world is overpopulated and it is not necessary for guys to have ten children to carry on their name and work their crops anymore, we should consider the “biological card” a moot point. Honestly, I don’t think that most married couples who are in love,and are trusting and sharing, would really need to go outside the marriage to satisfy their sexual needs. A couple that trusts each other can fulfill each others sexual desires simply by communicating what they want. When you really love someone you want to make them happy in the marriage, and that includes sex. But why go to multiple partners for various desires you have when you can get it all from the one person who you know that won’t judge you for your weird sexual fantasies?

 

MsLilithe Magdalene Highly recommend the book Sex at Dawn – women are NOT biologically designed to want only one partner. Here is a great video with the author of the book, and the first half of the video is really a condensation of it.

 

Erica Bastow You can’t base the idea that women are not biologically monogamous, based on the opinion of Christopher Ryan’s book and that video. Much more research has been done that shows women, even in very primitive times, as needing the support of family and clan (including mate) to rear their children and survive. Even today, women have a very difficult time rearing children without a partner, whether that be a man or a woman…even with social services.

 

MsLilithe Magdalene The book is far more than opinion, and I would love to see the research you mention. I really wish you could see that being nonmonogamous has nothing to do with being abandoned, as your last post intimates. In fact, the bonobos, that Ryan speak of, are very tribal, supportive, matriarchal and share child rearing and food – all happily along with their fluid sexual partnerships. This does not mean that all humans should be nonmonogamous – his claim is merely that we are genetically predisposed to it. Monogamy is something we have learned through social change.

 

Erica Bastow Through social change and economic depression humans have become dog eat dog rather than cooperative clans like the bonobos. I cannot see a future where humans will have “fluid sexual partnerships” that don’t end badly. We have more emotional development that apes and other animals…and more emotional baggage…so you can’t compare us to primitive man or apes.

 

MsLilithe Magdalene It’s not about comparison – it’s about understanding genetic proclivities and putting them into perspective. It’s about stepping out of religious shame and understanding our biological natures so that they can be reframed by those who choose to do so. Nobody is trying to get you to do it – why make it wrong or try to argue against it for those whom it does work? That is the nature of the conversation here. Kathleen’s comments offended people for whom an open marriage is working – calling them stupid. The point is to look at your own feelings about it, honor them – but also honor others’ choices. Just because we have a genetic proclivity towards it is to support those who want to do it – it’s not to shame those who choose and do well with monogamy.

Liandra Dahl Erica, no one is suggesting that the future will be everyone living in open marriages. It’s a personal decision and there are valid reasons for choosing either. The future we want is one were others don’t judge you for your choices. I don’t judge what you choose personally for your relationship structure and if you wish for your relationships to be respected then it is only fair to reciprocate that respect to people who have made different choices. I know people with “fluid sexual partnerships” who have been together for decades. One for 15 years and another for 30 years. They are incredibly happy and so I assure you it is quite possible and already exists as a reality for these people. I don’t know any monogamous people in that long a marriage who haven’t actually cheated and then had to get over the deception… because monogamy creates alot of opportunity for deception. For Kathleen it is sexual monogamy that means respect, for me it is honesty and trust that means respect. An open marriage is not for everyone, we all agree, it’s not for you and it;s not for Kathleen quite clearly. However, monogamy is not for everyone either. There is no reason to argue as there is no right answer just the answer that is right for you and your partner.

 

Erica Bastow I am not one to offend anyone in their choice of relationship or be offended, as long as no one in said relationship is in emotional pain. But, by God I will defend any children that arise from such a union, as their life will be one of confusion about who daddy is, and daddies will pop in and out of the child’s life as they do the mother’s.

 

Liandra Dahl I have children in an open marriage. There is no confusion at all about who daddy is. That is a terribly insulting assumption you have made. Implicit in that comment is the idea that an open marriage is synonymous with “men just come and go as they please”. How dare you assume that having an open marriage means less care for children. People who choose monogamy often have “serial monogamy” and move on from families and have more families elsewhere, then due to the “monogamous ideal” previous families become increasingly neglected. Some monogamous marriage are spectacular parenting units and the same goes for open marriages. Some monogamous marriages are hideous parenting units and the same goes for open marriages. To claim that monogamy monopolises good parenting is an utter fallacy and is most definitely a direct insult.

 

MsLilithe Magdalene Erica – that is a seriously offensive comment you just made.

 

MsLilithe Magdalene Your assumptions about what a non-monogamous marriage looks like shows incredible ignorance about it. I suggest to do some more reading before making any further comments.

 

Kathleen Donnafield I think the assumption that everyone one else who has an opinion contrary to your own is ignorant. Not everyone looks at your assessment of some off the wall writer as an authority on what makes a health family unit. Anyone who thinks guys and a gal raising kids is healthy is not giving a diddly damn about the children. And Liandra; you may have a ’138′ IQ and an open marriage to go along with that IQ(?), so in the grand scheme of things….what really do you have? I pity anyone who thinks this is a healthy lifestyle, especially children who live in this type of family. Ask the kids in 20 years what they think of their upbringing. You all pat yourselves on your own backs now, but I’m sure you won’t want to hear the negatives later on.

 

MsLilithe Magdalene Kathleen – you are the one who started the conversation by calling people who engage in open marriages as “stupidity personified” – so how on earth can you be crying “oh don’t label me as ignorant”? It is one thing to have a contrary opinion – it is another to judge the people who do it – as you did when you commented. I am about to block both you and Erica – I am embarrassed by your remarks – and yes, at this point I will call it ignorance, as you are not reading and researching and talking to what is these days a pretty large group of people for whom this works, nor are you talking to their children – and making really ugly judgments about them, their lives and their abilities to be good parents. You are making sweeping assumptions about something you have FEELINGS about, but not any direct knowledge that you have demonstrated. That is more than just expressing an opinion – that is ignorance.

 

Kathleen Donnafield Meant to say..I think the assumption that everyone one else who has an opinion contrary to your own is ignorant is your opinion, which doesn’t mean a thing to me. That you would call Erica incredibly ignorant because she has a well-framed response to open marriage, is stating you are right and she (and anyone else who agrees, such as myself) are not entitled to our opinions. But then, why shoud anyone outside of your very narrow view expect otherwise!

 

Kathleen Donnafield What makes the writer of the book an authority. He is a man who is of the opinion humans aren’t meant to be monogamous. I think the majority of people would disagree with you and I don’t see any good coming out of these types of unions other than the sexual gratification which I’m sure you would equate to emotionally fulfilling. Whatever trips your trigger, it seems. Poor, innocent children.

 

MsLilithe Magdalene ?”Well framed” would be to be able to back it up with experience, stats, studies, whatever. Her assumptions are her own, based off of her fears and the situations of pain that generally occur in monogamous relationships when people cheat and abandon. They have nothing to do with the concrete realities of people who are living this way, have been living this way for decades and are making it work. That is ignorance. Expressing feelings and fears and opinions is very different than making assumptions about how poly works or how it affects the children in such families – and the statements you have both made are assumptions – not reality. The polyamorous community is much larger than people realize, and though there are many imperfections in some of those relationships, those imperfections are not any more than in monogamous ones.

 

And here’s news – oftentimes, opinions are based off of ignorance – ignorance is just a lack of information. Informed opinions I have respect for, even if I disagree. Uninformed opinions, judgments based on fears and assumptions – I have no respect for. I can have respect for them if expressed as personal fears or feelings, questions and wonderments, but not when they are lobed at other people and their lives.

 

Kathleen Donnafield Just because many have lived blissfully in these unions does not make it morally just and again, I sympathize so much for children who have no choice in these matters. I regard this as no different than the Mormon polygamists that people are so angered over. So, that means you approve of their lifestyles as well.

 

Kathleen Donnafield Oh…and certainly feel free to block me. I personally don’t care what you think of me and your nastiness toward Erica is uncalled for.

 

MsLilithe Magdalene

List of researches being done on poly families:

 

http://practical-polyamory.blogspot.com/2012/01/polyamory-and-children-research-update.html

 

MsLilithe Magdalene Oy vey – if you bring nastiness, expect nastiness. The two of you brought judgement (despite your claims to the contrary). Both of the poly people here responded to you with an open conversation about their lives, and asking why you would judge, and all they got back was more judgment. “Look in the mirror”.

 

MsLilithe Magdalene And yes, if polygamy works for a family, as long as there is healthy family relationships, I think it’s great.

 

Liandra Dahl I am disappointed to read the malicious negativity from Erica and Kathleen towards those different from them. Your undeserved, self righteous, privilege of hegemonic conformist monogamy makes you feel you have the right to insult people without consequences. You may or may not be ignorant but you certainly are bigots. Just letting you know that I have copied and pasted all these comments and I’m formulating a blog on this prejudice in action as I am astounded by the hypocrisy of Kathleen who feels that the insults she and Erica have levied at people and parents in open marriages are respectful behaviour but whined about “uncalled for nastiness” when someone calls those malicious insults ignorance. How very sad that this discussion couldn’t have been more mature and respectful whilst expressing the two different positions

Kathleen Donnafield Children are impressionable and to live in a relationship that frankly is very selfish with disregard for the children. Whether or not you like my opinions doesn’t matter because I don’t care for yours either. Two people who want to have a open marriage should keep it totally away from their children… Every responsible and loving parent considers instilling values in their children by example but how can you call open relationships providing the kind of role models they need during their impressionable young years.

Liandra Dahl I want to say I do know an adult person who was a child in an open marriage. He is now 45 years old and he has been happily married for 15 years. He is a successful director and he has a daughter and two sons who are brilliant and talented and loved and cared for. He is now also in an open marriage of 15 years with a brilliant woman and they both love and respect each other deeply. They are wonderful, committed parents. It is a common modus operandi of lifestyle bigotry to first claim that adult consensual, loving, respectful but nonconformist behaviour is wrong for the adults involved and THEN when faced with the reality that it is probably not wrong for those people to then wail “but we must protect the children from this monstrous lifestyle” this was used against inter-racial marriages and is used about gay marriages and is used about open marriages. This means of arguing is exploiting children to defend a failing argument that has no evidence or moral value other than BIGOTRY… meaning seeing people different from you as inferior to you (e.g. calling them stupidity personified or insisting they could not be good parents because of who they have sex with) and thus the refusal to respect other people and their families for not conforming to your lifestyle choices.

 

 

Today a man in a restaurant glared at my armpit hair and then shook his head and discussed disapprovingly with his friend…then a woman on a bus shouted at me “you should shave your armpits” which begs the question WHY THE FUCK DO YOU CARE WHAT I DO WITH MY BODY? Women’s bodies are a battle ground of public opinion… if you’re wondering why I grow them…well it’s the quickest way I know how to say “I DON’T GIVE A FUCK WHAT YOU THINK OF ME” to everyone who looks. Everytime they give me shit for it I love my hair all the more. Praise be to my furry pits MUTHA FUKKAS!

 

Oh and praise be to all these hairy pits too down at the hairy pits club.

More furor over lady pit kitties  http://www.thelocal.se/39642/20120313/ and http://www.thelocal.se/39702/20120316/

My 11.5 year old daughter told me over breakfast this morning that one of her best friend has started throwing her lunches away to make themselves thin… and so it begins. I promptly emailed the school and suggested that social and personal studies on Fridays needs to cover eating disorders. I have no idea if that will help but at least it will plant the seed of understanding about these behaviours and their longterm consequences in the girls minds.

Carlin Ross wrote this week about Rhianna’s Dad calling her fat and coincidentally, in my experience, all the women I’ve known with eating disorders had father’s who had very high expectations and were heavily critical of their daughter’s when they failed to meet them. I’m not claiming that as a universal truth but it is a link I have seen personally. My daughter’s best friend has a father who pushes his daughter to the limit to be “his perfect little princess”. Of all the girls in the group she has to lie to her parents the most. They have no idea she’s already kissed a boy with tongues many times or that she has smoked or on the other hand that she has stopped eating her lunches so she can have the perfect ballerina** physic her father is so proud of. This image of perfection they’re demanding of her is slowly killing her internal sources of self esteem and forcing it to be externalised in her father’s expectations. Inside she knows she is not the perfect image he has of her but she is terrified that her father won’t love her if she does not live up to his expectations. So, she rebels against it in secret and then over-compensates filling his “good girl ballerina” facade at the expense of her own choices about who she wants to be.

A lot of folks criticise the sentiment of being a friend to your child, and to try and be a peer is absurd, but there has to be an element of friendship in parenting to this stretch from child to adult (12 to 18), or at least ensure there is a friendly adult in thier life they can talk too. The boundaries of childhood need to be readjusted and based more apon a reasoned discussion, a collaborative understanding rather than arbitrary rules and punishment. A parent must not live vicariously through our often delusional hopes that our children would be exceptional prodigies if only we pushed them HARD enough. It’s important to cultivate opportunities for them and encourage them to show commitment to their goals but not to set their goals and force their commitment upon them. I loath the way parents cry shame upon themselves when there child isn’t what they wanted it to be as an adult. What gave you the right to dictate their future? You do not own this person. The only hope you should have is that they will gladly share their own adult journey with you. Our feelings of propriety and control over our children, misguided in the first place really, need to relinquish still further slowly over adolescence. They do for boys but often not as easily for girls, if at all in some cases. Ultimately, I feel this plays a large part in self esteem development and in the general perception in our culture that women are public property to be protected and controlled from their own autonomous desires and ambitions.

Interestingly I get told by some people I am too hard on my daughter. I have never indulged fussy eating for example. If you don’t eat what I put in front of you you don’t get fed. Others still tell me I am too soft, as I allow my child to dress as she likes (from the clothes I buy her so there is still an appropriate boundary), wear make-up if she likes and colour her hair if she likes. It is her body and I am teaching her dominion over it but also discussing the external reactions to dress and appearance and what to expect. I think this is an important part of instilling in future women a sense of autonomy over their bodies. It is all too easy as a parent of teen girl to start using concern manipulatively, to start exerting control with shaming their bodies, their dress, their words, their choices because of “the scary world out there”. You need to look your best and most appealing to be accepted and be a very good chaste girl to be safe and still adored by your father.

Hmmm… I’m rambling due to ruminating as I write rather than beforehand. I’d be very interested in people’s feed back.

**I suspect we all know ballet and anorexia go hand in hand due to the abhorent demands of weight loss in the industry as in fashion modeling, not to mention it is a dance that seeks to hide the massive leg strength of the female in a facade of ‘daintiness’, ‘fragility’ and ‘grace’)

There are some memories that make hard days easier to get through. There are some people who do the same. I feel this way about The BodySex Work Shop Documentary and all the women involved. When I think about the BodySex Workshop I remember 2011 with a profound feeling of warmth and privilege that is indomitable. When the DVD arrived in my mailbox last week, it’s timing could not have been better.

It brought so much happiness to me, and I adored the behind the scenes footage that showed the bonds we had created. I was also reminded how easy it can be to be caught up in the monotony of frustrating circumstances but do nothing to change them. The BodySex Documentary reminded me of the capacity of my own body to sustain me in the same way as the memory and the friendships. We often hear the phrase, mind over matter, in regard to the mind overpowering the body to reach a certain goal.

I wish there was an as oft said phrase for the ability of the body to comfort, support and heal the mind. I know this to be as true as the latter but I rarely recognise it as having quite as much value. I do now.

During something I recently experienced that was emotionally, sexually and mentally difficult for me I lost my ability to orgasm for the second time in my life. For me, this is a massive indicator of physical and mental unbalance with my surroundings. It is my body’s way of telling me all is not well and I am not safe (in a manner of speaking) and that I must attend to the discordance immediately. So I did.

The following night I used what I had learned from Betty about vulvic massage and from Carlin about not forcing an orgasm with tension to experience a crygasm, as Marisa did during the workshop, which helped me release a large amount of pent up frustration; to experience catharsis of my body and my mind simultaneously. I have always been most focused on sex and sexuality from the perspective of a hedonistic means to mere physical pleasure and politically as an inalienable right to autonomy over my body and its functions.

However since doing The BodySex WorkShop I have become more aware that the necessity for pleasure is not simply the joyousness of the pleasure itself but the capacity of that joy to heal, sustain and support us in sickness and in health, for better or worse, for as long as we live.