Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > Fireplace

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #131  
Old 11-05-2013, 01:42 PM
YouAreHere's Avatar
YouAreHere YouAreHere is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: SoNH
Posts: 790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdt26417 View Post
Oh ... except, what about those infamous guys who wear just a trenchcoat and go about intentionally flashing their erection to various individuals? That's not the kind of nudity we support, is it? any of us, right? Anyone disagree with me about that? (Care to elaborate if so?)
As an aside, a friend who grew up in Queens and took the subway into school every morning learned that "point and laugh loudly" is the best means of getting rid of these guys. They prey on people who are too embarrassed to speak up. Turning the tables (and yes, using shame as a tool) apparently works.

(Tossing in the hand grenade, then leaving...)
In some instances, shame isn't a bad thing.
__________________
Dramatis personae:
Me: Mono. Divorced, two kids, two cats, one house with many projects.
Chops: My partner of ~3 years. Poly. In relationships with me, Xena, and Noa.
Xena: Poly. In relationships with Chops and Noa, and dating others.
Noa: Married, Poly. In relationships with Chops and Xena (individually).

My navel-gazing blog thread: A Mono's Journey Into Poly-Land (or, "Aw hell, there's no road map?!")
My slightly more polished blog (external): From Baltic to Boardwalk
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 11-05-2013, 01:47 PM
YouAreHere's Avatar
YouAreHere YouAreHere is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: SoNH
Posts: 790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdt26417 View Post
Re: breastfeeding and nudity too ... both natural states being underminded by capitalism? Which villain, then, is the more inimical, capitalism or self-hatred? or is it a chicken-and-egg problem where each engenders the other?
Sadly, some of those who would benefit greatly from breastfeeding (those who have low-paying jobs, for instance, and could avoid having to spend money on formula) simply can't if they want to keep a job. Pumping takes time (typically more than your standard break), and therefore takes time away from a job. It's almost impossible to pump enough during a standard work break to keep a baby fed. The less you pump, the more you supplement, and the less you produce. The cycle spirals down until you stop producing and end up on formula until they can move to other foods.
__________________
Dramatis personae:
Me: Mono. Divorced, two kids, two cats, one house with many projects.
Chops: My partner of ~3 years. Poly. In relationships with me, Xena, and Noa.
Xena: Poly. In relationships with Chops and Noa, and dating others.
Noa: Married, Poly. In relationships with Chops and Xena (individually).

My navel-gazing blog thread: A Mono's Journey Into Poly-Land (or, "Aw hell, there's no road map?!")
My slightly more polished blog (external): From Baltic to Boardwalk
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 11-06-2013, 05:32 AM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Olympia, Washington
Posts: 4,713
Default

Re (from YouAreHere):
Quote:
"Heh. Well, if we take this line of thought over to, say, polyamory, I can tell you that some folks would believe I'm mono because I'm still brainwashed, somehow, by society."
Ahhh ... then you must then force yourself to get in the mood to act poly at a time when society would think it would be inappropriate to do so. It's the only way to cast out that illogical monogamous brainwashing!

Society approved = illogical, impractical. You must stop doing all the things that (American) society approves of. Then you'll feel the love.

Re:
Quote:
"I'm not comfortable in the nude ..."
Arrgh! Can't you see that's just because they've taught you to make big deals at certain body parts? Can't you feel the self-hatred when you shamefully dress yourself up, looking furtively from side to side, hoping no one will see?

And what about all the would-be nudists out there who need your banner-raising example to inspire them to do what nature is telling them to do? Society is in a crisis, man; our very species is going to destroy itself if we don't stop the attire-wearing madness!

Re: bad kitties ... how about them BDSM kitties who roll on their back to tempt you to revel in their angel-hair tummy, then, just when you cave into the temptation: cat attack! Kick kick kick, lick, bite, scratch, and all the while they're thinking, "Man, she can really take it."

Re: point and laugh loudly at the trenchcoat flashers ... wow, creativity has won a victory against debauchery. Reminds me of getting rid of a telemarketer by telling them about all your escalating credit bills, your upcoming bankruptcy filing, and all the little voices in your head that are telling the telemarketer their kinky fortune.

What? Shame a good thing? Nooo ... we need to teach those trenchcoat flashers to love themselves, and then they'll love everybody and then we can say to them, "Hey, high-five buddy! That's what I call a live torpedo."

Re: breastfeeding ... something in corporate policy needs to change ... seems like the ideal would be provisions for taking one's child to work so one could breastfeed the child directly ... and since that's a pipe dreams, longer breaks are needed for breastfeeding mothers to pump.

Will the government make this a requirement? depends on what kind of bribing and blackmailing the corporations can do, I suppose. For that kind of battle, you truly need a grassroots supercell. I don't suppose the unions would help?
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 11-06-2013, 06:15 AM
InfinitePossibility InfinitePossibility is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 348
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by YouAreHere View Post
Heh. Well, if we take this line of thought over to, say, polyamory, I can tell you that some folks would believe I'm mono because I'm still brainwashed, somehow, by society.
How irritating. For me the key thing is as you say, having looked at something with a critical eye and decided that it is or isn't for you.

I don't get accused of being brain washed but as a woman who has never married and plans never to have children and who spent the better part of her 30s single and living with dogs, people would sometimes suggest that I wasn't entirely sane. I don't help the situation by doing other things that are a bit odd. I work part time so that I can study things for fun, I don't have lots of shoes or buy lots of clothes, I'd rather go to a conference than on a holiday. I have gone through phases of being told regularly that I'm ruining my life. That I either need to focus on my career or get a husband and children.

Not often more than once by the same person. I have thought out all of my decisions and the way I live my life and can talk passionately about all of them. Plenty of people who came to try and talk me round to finding a husband and having children would go away feeling a bit jealous that they don't have the things I have in my life.

(my mum thinks my attitude is inherited - she reckons that her mum tended toward the unconventional and that I'm like her)

Plus - how can anybody tell if anything they do is because they want to or because of the environment they find themselves in? I'd think that in fact it's going to be pretty much always a combination.

I have a bunch of friends who had poly relationships when we were all younger. None of them do now. For a number of reasons. Some say that they just prefer monogamy. For others they have other things going on in their lives that take too much of their time and energy to allow them to maintain more than one romantic relationship. It seems normal to me that people would change their approach depending on what else is happening in their life.


Re breast feeding at work and having time to do so. Maybe moving to Venezuela would help? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3460190.html
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 11-06-2013, 06:40 AM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Olympia, Washington
Posts: 4,713
Default

Re:
Quote:
"Plus -- how can anybody tell if anything they do is because they want to or because of the environment they find themselves in? I'd think that in fact it's going to be pretty much always a combination."
Oooh ... good one.

Re: article about Venezuela ... sounds like they're serious about breatfeeding if they're going to restrict/outlaw baby bottles. But I didn't see any mentions of passing laws requiring corporations to make breastfeeding easier for their female employees?
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 11-06-2013, 07:22 AM
InfinitePossibility InfinitePossibility is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 348
Default

The quote is about Venezuelan breastfeeding laws as applied to employers.
Quote:
articles 344-352 state that mothers have the right to two half hour breaks per day to breastfeed. If there is no breastfeeding room provided by the work place, that is extended to two 90 minute breaks, and all employers of more than 20 workers must maintain a nursery centre with a breastfeeding area.
From http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/9740

Treating people like human beings, of course, can be done. Sadly, those of us living in the UK (and it's worse in the US I believe), live in a situation where psychopathic behavior is encouraged.

This article isn't at all critical and doesn't in any way address the fact that it's the system of capitalism that encourages psychopaths to hold executive positions but it does outline how well suited those people are to running corporations.

http://chiefexecutive.net/skilled-ex...-or-psychopath

Scary stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 11-06-2013, 07:53 AM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Olympia, Washington
Posts: 4,713
Default

Since work breaks for breastfeeding mothers are already provided for in Venzuela, I'm relieved and won't worry about it so much.

Re: psychopaths and corporations ... I'm sure (in fact I've heard some of the horror stories) that the article is a needed glimpse into corporate reality. In fact I've read interview material from Bill Gates that has psychopath written all over it.

I also think that any powerful organization is going to have a similar tendency, because psychopaths like to control other people, and there's no better place to control other people than on top. So governments and churches get suspicious looks from me. Yes such institutions have rules/laws to prevent corruption. But then psychopaths are pretty adept at slip-sliding around any rules that get in their way.

Guess that makes me a little anti-authoritarian in general, but I don't know that I propose an answer as simple as, "Disband all the big organizations," much as I may like the sound of that. For the moment my proposal is, "Watch the big organizations like a hawk."

Some leaders are sincere and some are not-so-sincere. Some are straight-dealing and some are corrupt to the bone. I suggest extra wariness against leaders who seem to be prone to lie (and molding the truth like silly putty is basically the same thing) and prioritize their own personal interests. A corrupt leader is very hard to get rid of, but being aware of that leader's corruption is the first step.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 11-06-2013, 12:03 PM
YouAreHere's Avatar
YouAreHere YouAreHere is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: SoNH
Posts: 790
Default

Re. "brainwashing": I tend to see this in idealistic folks who say, "I believe EVERYONE is poly at heart" bla bla bla. You're free to believe what you want to believe, dude, but if you can get out of my face about it, that'd be great, mmkay? I don't really like to engage street preachers of any stripe.

P went through a phase like this, and it actually cost him some friends, and I damn near ripped him a new one (which he would probably just be ashamed of and cover up with clothes ).

Re. flashers: your "torpedo" line made me snort coffee through my nose. LOL.

Re. environment versus innate behavior: I agree - some combination of both, and it's not always easy to figure it out. I'm sure that *some* of my mono-ness is environmentally grown (my discomfort with certain social situations, for example) - but that's just one aspect of it. Nature and nurture are both important.

Re. psychopaths: The Psychopath Test was an interesting read. It posits that maybe some CEOs have to be psychopaths to have gotten where they are. It does, however, suffer from the same problem I have with other books in that it cherry picks its pool of people, but it doesn't really come to any definitive conclusions, and it's some interesting stuff to think about. The definition of psychopath is an interesting thing, and in reading the book, it seems that some "normal" people would probably find themselves trapped in such a diagnosis (although I read elsewhere that the test is really more definitive than described).

Why yes, I read about psychopaths in my spare time. I'm not one, at least. Right? Right?
__________________
Dramatis personae:
Me: Mono. Divorced, two kids, two cats, one house with many projects.
Chops: My partner of ~3 years. Poly. In relationships with me, Xena, and Noa.
Xena: Poly. In relationships with Chops and Noa, and dating others.
Noa: Married, Poly. In relationships with Chops and Xena (individually).

My navel-gazing blog thread: A Mono's Journey Into Poly-Land (or, "Aw hell, there's no road map?!")
My slightly more polished blog (external): From Baltic to Boardwalk
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 11-07-2013, 05:50 AM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Olympia, Washington
Posts: 4,713
Default

Re:
Quote:
"'I believe *everyone* is poly at heart' bla bla bla."
Or, everyone's a nudist at heart? Idea being, perhaps, that all the animals appear to be nudists at heart, and humans are animals, so why shouldn't the same principle apply?

Humans have distinguished themselves from other animals in so very many ways, one of the most interesting being that, having started out in Africa (where it was nice and warm and humans could evolve as a species with hardly any fur to speak of), humans then developed this crazy wild wanderlust and started migrating around the world -- too quickly for evolution to keep up (and re-supply the migrating humans with a thick fur coat). At the same time, humans seem to have quickly developed an interest in "inventing things" -- such as clothing. Or was that interest and invention evolution's way of keeping up with all the rapid migrations?

It's not easy to understand why humans diverged so starkly from the paths of all previous evolution that by now we have to *remind* ourselves that we're animals because it's become so darn easy to forget.

You can like cities or hate 'em, but the reality is that because of humans, cities are now scattered across the globe, with their patterns of steel, cement, straight lines, dizzy skyscrapers, creative geometry, railways, runways, roads crawling with cars and trucks, the seas with ships, aircraft carriers, planes drawing contrails across the stratosphere, endless farmlands with their modern circular shapes, towers suspending wires everywhere, satellites transmitting enough signals to accomodate something called the "world wide web," languages the size of the Oxford dictionary, surgeons, scientists, astronauts, robots, musicians, magicians, clowns, comedians, movies, roller-coasters, sports stadiums, ice rinks, skis, skates, the Olympics ... none of this looks like "normal animal behavior."

And the official explanation for all of this (and much more, including our endless array of sophisticated tools of violence) is what? a total of two things:
  • large brains;
  • opposable thumbs.
Am I missing something, or does that seem like a rather teeny explanation for the amount of difference we observe between humans and *all* other animals? Oh sure, other animals have a variety of smarts, talents, and creativity that are quite a sight to see, but surely we can all agree that humans are "different" from the rest by orders of magnitude? far too different for me, at least, to be satisfied by the teeny explanation listed above.

I doubt that this "solves the case," but somehow, that teeny list may have worked in combination with the magical twist of fate we call serendipity. In particular, I've come (over my abundance of years) to believe that the brain's most powerful tool may very well be its "ability" (or tendency) to make mistakes. It's probably the main reason why we never quite seem to be able to pin down the secret to creating artificial intelligence. Our "intelligence" may actually be centered around our foolishness: George Carlin will always be fondly remembered for calling it our "brain farts."

It gives me considerable pause to look around at all the various levels of technology that surround me, that I depend on, and consider that every one of them is probably the ultimate outcome of a bunch of mistakes that various people made -- and thence hit upon the new and the unexpected.

Technically -- logically speaking -- in practical terms -- it was a mistake for humans to pack back down south the clothes they had invented. Once that mistake had been made, clothes were no longer about the weather, and as a result were perhaps then destined to become about all kinds of crazy things: shame, modesty, dignity, religion, fashion, decoration, symbolism, habit, whim; you name it. Humans do have, after all, a penchant for "inventing reasons" for things they can't scientifically explain -- and hanging on to the invented reasons long after science has tried to supplant them.

If we were really still like all the other animals, then I guess we would all be nudists at heart. But human history has been the strangest (best? worst?) part of the planet's history. So much so that we really *aren't* like the other animals -- not anymore. We've re-invented the type of life form that we are (for better or worse). Oh sure there's lots of animal left in us, but now there's a whole bunch more stuff that we've -- mistakenly? serendipitously? -- added.

And maybe that's why, in accordance to my own personal beliefs, humans are both monogamous and polyamorous. One thing's for sure, whatever humans are, it isn't consistent. Take language for example. Any species of animal with a large enough brain has its own "language" -- its ways of communicating with other animals of its own species. But humans -- a single species -- have multiple languages, in fact more languages than we know what to do with and it actually makes our interactions more, not less, complicated. Another mistake? How'd we make that mistake, when every other animal species managed to "do the job right?"

Or, does this "confusion of tongues" now mean something more than just our inability to finish the Tower of Babel? Has language, for example, become an art form? an expression of diverse cultures and their nuances? What meanings has language acquired that in some inexpressible way enhanced what communication can accomplish?

[continued below]
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 11-07-2013, 05:50 AM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Olympia, Washington
Posts: 4,713
Default

[continued from above]

Re:
Quote:
"P went through a phase like this, and it actually cost him some friends, and I damn near ripped him a new one (which he would probably just be ashamed of and cover up with clothes )."
And then, he would have had to wipe with twice as much dry paper, of course still trying to kid himself into thinking he was then "clean." (Gods I'm a meanie ... Thor, I implore you to strike me now, as a public service.)

Re: monogamy (or proper clothing) as enforced by devious means on the general populace ... nurture's the obvious culprit, but did nurture press nature into service? that is, do you think social conformists have a better chance to live longer/better and pass on their genes? Maybe anyone who happened to already be naturally/comfortably clothed and monogamous, would thence tend to live a more successful life, woo more interested mates, and get lots of their genes spread into the next generation. A "natural-born rebel," perhaps scrambling just to survive each successive day, might attract fewer mates or even none at all (especially if that rebel were imprisoned or executed). In that way, the patterns and consequences of nurture could actually be supplementing themselves with reproduction through nature, and "conforming to the norm" might actually have become an evolutionary advantage.

Which by the way is part of the problem with out-and-out rebellion. How much can one accomplish when one is in the brig or in jail, or taken out by an executioner or an assassin, or suppressed in such a way that the rebel in question can scarcely get his ideas to be heard/seen by anybody (let alone have any kids he can train right)?

And if this rebel conforms enough to live and preach and raise children, does it then become his responsibility to teach his kids to rebel more than he himself did? "Kids, screw the social fallout, do the logical thing according to your inclinations and no matter what they do to you, you will have gotten the message out and raised awareness." Doesn't that make that parent a coward, a hypocrite, or even a bad parent?

Two examples of what I'm getting at is that attempting change (for the better) at a radical speed tends to awaken the powers that be, and the rebellion is crushed. Each of us conforms. Willingly. It's our choice, and as such, our responsibility. Because as individuals we *can't* rebel or we'll be snuffed out.

What we can do is rebel in small, gradual ways. And maybe teaching our kids to be radical rebels counts as a small, gradual gesture of rebellion by the parents, but then if the kids become the radical rebels their parents "couldn't" become, they will suffer the fate that their parents "couldn't afford to suffer." (And that's my second example.)

If we're really as brave and willing to practice what we preach as we think our kids should be, then we ourselves should be getting out there right now, doing the things that will get us thrown in the brig and in jail, and rejoicing in the chance to be a martyr for the cause of spreading the message of love. Forget teaching our kids to rebel without compromise; we should be teaching the kids to do so by our example.

Even Martin Luther King Jr., who died for the cause of racial healing, did so in such a way that he could reach an immense audience before he had to sacrifice his life. For that reason and many others, my advice to most people is to live in peace with what society now offers, encouraging change in ways small enough to be logical under the circumstances. And can we heal society by hating it? No -- we must be able to see the good in it and love it for the goodness that it has. Love, not hate, is the key to change. We need to "reason with society" on "society's own level," not try to force society to "rise" to our (superior?) level.

Is society insane? How does one answer that when insanity is a subjective, convenient concept?

Re:
Quote:
"Why yes, I read about psychopaths in my spare time. I'm not one, at least. Right? Right? "
Only insofar as you conform to our insane society. And I of course, being likewise insane, can't accurately diagnose your condition. But Bill Gates, he's a different story. He's just a misunderstood genius who's been wrongly slandered with the "narcissist con man" label. Oh, how can they persecute him so when he brings the world so many great things (out of his own brilliant mind)?

The free/chaotic admixture of earnest and sarcastic swill in these posts, I leave to you and any who dare to sort out. Think of it as a puzzle or a brain-teaser. Or in some cases, just a teaser.

Subversively,
Kevin T.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
body, hate, hatred, human, self-hatred

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:17 AM.