- Tite Barnacle
- Jun 4, 2014
-
Meowdy Purrdner
-
Grimey Drawer
|
My self-summary
Where are all the enticing, emotionally rich, psychologically centered/sound, simply complex, complexly simple, health-conscious, playful, artistic / aesthetically aware, intellectually/philosophically curious, epistemologically iconoclastic, sophisticated yet edgy, sensual, virtuous wo/men at? Do you have the capacity to 'get an affectionate Other off' without even touching them or talking about sex? Are you not afraid of commitment, intimacy, vulnerability and no stranger to conscious self-awareness and personal growth? Do you see the value of 'tradition', think it significant, yet defy or alter it when there is merited evidence to do so? Do you hold yourself to a high degree of thresholds aimed toward healthy forms of intimacy, self-responsibility and sense of integrity (i.e. say what you mean, mean what you say and do what you say and mean)? Do you have the ability to be resilient, unflappable and preserve in the face of a challenge worth attempting and follow through until completion? Do your views differ from the common paradigm held as normative within our larger society, particularly in relation to intimate relationships? Do you not base the primary purpose or drive of seeking or being in a relationship solely on the grounds of sexual self-gratification (i.e. masturbating upon another person's body just to get off; non- promiscuous) or avoidance of loneliness (i.e. the cause of loneliness tends to be self-abandonment)? Are you a non-violent, non-coercive rebel WITH a cause and without tangible (i.e. chemical) and/or intangible addictions (i.e. beliefs, relationships, etc)? Can you keep your cool in emotionally challenging situations (i.e. lack avoidance behaviors, repression habits)? If you do not reflect these realities in sum, but are making efforts to do so for your own sake, welcome! If you already enact the above as your modus operandi, welcome! Stay awhile, let's dialogue.
----
“For he who loves your soul is the true lover, the lover of the body goes away when the flower of youth fades, but he who loves the soul goes not away, as long as the soul follows after virtue. And I’m the lover who goes not away, but remains with you, when you are no longer young and the rest are gone…I only love you, where as other men love what belongs to you [your body]; and your [physical] beauty, which is not you, is fading away, just as your true self [inner beauty] is beginning to bloom. And I will never desert you, if you are not spoiled and deformed by [a corrupted society]…for the danger which I most fear is that you will become a lover of the people and be spoiled by them.” -Plato
---
Ready to meet my interior monologue voice? If so, forgive me ahead of time for my mind's innate need to pontificate. Readers have inquired as to where I acquired my interior voice and writing style. My response to this question, in terms of answering to the best of my awareness on this issue, is that 'the voice' just showed up one day. 'The voice' must have found my mind receptive and vacant, and so, it decided to pop a squat there. Another question prior your entry into my constellation of thought is, are you also open to learning a few new words? If you answered in the affirmative to both questions, by all means, read on!
I would simply describe myself as a sapiosexual-demisexual, an atypical, and an especially 'special' kind of individual (i.e. passionately, albeit unintentionally, eccentric)-- keep reading and you'll soon discover how this is so as evident by my manner and mode of expression here. I enjoy partaking in conversations and developing connections endued in my preferred epistemological orientations; in particular, they are, but not limited to: psychoanalytic, deconstructionist, critical and aesthetic thematic attitudes and qualities of appreciation and critique.
The interests and concerns voiced within the stated rhetorical communities, from their epistemic standpoint, tend to inform and structure my subjective, interpersonal communication style, outlook, and critical thinking methods. This is particularly true for the initial foundation of how I establish a connection through my preferred interpersonal and rhetorical rituals of meeting others. Put differently, I utilize the intersubjective knowledge of these subjects to assist me in rendering subjective meaning, interpretations and values that, as a result, sensitize my quality of listening to others in order to recognize the interpersonal and intrapersonal landscapes of those with whom I communicate. I am innately curiously about the interior terrain of another, particularly concerning their own epistemological outlooks via their perception of intangible/tangible objects and subjects, in general; this is true regardless of whether or not their interpretative structures and tentative/permanent conclusions match my own.
With these understandings, and as evidenced by reading my profile and OKC explained questions, I'd say that I am very socially liberal, yet I am extremely 'conservative' within the 'socially liberal' paradigm paradigm in terms of my personal praxis. Put differently, I am the most liberal conservative, and the most conservative liberal. And by 'conservative', I mean that my intimate-relationship-ethical-preferences are NOT within the realm of: a) poly-swinger (i.e. heavy on the poly, very ultra light on the 'amory'), b) low gratification delay, c) poor boundaries, d) lacking recognition of thresholds of differentiation of intimacy between strangers, acquaintances, friends, close friends, romantic lovers e) free-love, f) slut, g) polysexual-polyfuckery arena at all, h) not looking for a billiondy romantic and/or sexual partners, nor mates that desire to 'have' a billiondy sexual and/or romantic partners (see: 'you're not a sex addict' articles under the section 'you should message me if'); quite the opposite, really (for definitions of these terms, see: https://www.morethantwo.com/polyglossary.html ). Feel free to jump to the 'what I am willing to admit' section and read number four to get an in detail account of my preferred relationship expression and dynamic.
I take my personal agency, uses of my mind and body, and value systems quite seriously, as all aspects of me are bent on situating myself in the direction of a specific sort of experience for which I opt. Such is particularly true in matters concerning 'bonding behaviors' such as, yet are not limited to, physical / emotional intimacy. That said, I am very aware of, and sensitive to, the necessities of greatly considering and weighing whether or not 'physical' actions are licit in a given relationship circumstance in order to denote whether or not a given action matches my personal intentions and overall sense of integrity.
More often than not, it is rare for me when I believe that a relationship has the potential to move in a less platonic direction (i.e. all signs pointing to an authentic 'yes'). The reason for this is due in part to the manner in which I orient myself to another person's own intentions and desires as juxtaposed with my own outlook in order that my subjective sense believes that we'd compliment one another intrapsychically, in both the 'right and wrong' ways, very well.
I view physical intimacy as an extended expression, not the ultimate source and/or meaning of a relationship, in and of itself. If one cannot entertain a platonic period of friendship prior to jumping into a physical relationship, the outcome of said relationship, more often than not, will lack the luster of time-tested developed trust, quality intimacy, and a decent amount of healthy verification that each are choosing and proceeding to invest in each other by building a relationship. Of course this assumes that such is a mutually shared ontos and telos of the relationship, itself.
On another note, I have a strong preference and bias toward a virtue-based ethics that are ensconced in my relationship paradigm/schema. So, self-discipline, non-promiscuous behavior, healthy boundaries, healthy attachment styles and behaving with an intent that reflects my value system (which I hold nearly to a fault), for instance, are important to me. I also consider the 'rightness' of an act, and how the effects of an act, in and of itself, will/may positively or adversely effect or impact others associated in the act, prior to acting out the act itself, myself. To get an idea of what I am describing here, consider reading a few of my explanations in the OKC questions section of my profile and my take on the questions. Afterword, if you'd like, feel free to ask me any questions related to my responses to the questions.
Again, I enjoy quality companionship and am a very free-flowing sort individual. That said, If you met me in person, I confess that I come off a bit less serious in terms of tone, and my overall use of jargon is minimal. I have been told that I am a light-hearted, warm and friendly person.
In Keirsey temperament terminology, I am an INTP:
http://keirsey.com/4temps/architect.asp
In Enneagram terminology, I am a 5w4, subtype: intimate:
Link one: http://www.enneagramcentral.com/Enneagram/LonelyFives.htm
Link two: http://www.enneagramcentral.com/Enneagram/Subtypes/Subtype%20Five%20Intimate.htm
Link three: http://www.enneagramcentral.com/Enneagram/HoardingFives.htm
What I offer to those whom I seek a meaningful and mutual connection: quality conversations, playful companionship, and a reliable confidante. More specifically, I relate to others who require utilizing creative mediums of expression that serve them as an outlet for their emotional, psychological and spiritual life: Health Benefits of Love and Friendship (quality polyamory, whether platonic or otherwise, FTW): http://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-17284/5-unexpected-health-benefits-of-love-friendship.html
My outlet is obviously more specific to a thought art like philosophy, although I relish the opportunity of experiencing other forms of art as well - particularly instillation art. I graduated with a double major of Art and Communication in 2005. I also have a Master of Theological Studies degree (2009) , so one can estimate the drive I have toward abstraction in general by having earned these degrees.
So, as you can imagine, I become quite passionate when contemplating an idea and while discussing the idea in-depth with interested others. More specifically, I enjoy assessing, utilizing, critiquing and discovering epistemic keys that pervade all forms of knowledge regardless of the subject, as well as the consequences that surround holding such positions in terms of how said beliefs would effect other areas of meaning interwoven into social phenomena. To give you an idea of the intensity and length of specific conversations set toward this intended telos, I have had an eight-hour phone call conversation about abstract/critical topics that were critiqued with a great friend of mine. The reason it was over the phone is due to the fact that he lives out of state and is going after a PhD, otherwise we would have just met up and discussed the topic over coffee. It is not too odd to have coffee and conversation for eight-hours straight, right? lol Well, with that in mind, allow me to say that conversations such as these are not the case in all instances of interactions had with me; just conversations expressly intended to get at the essence of a (in)tangible object/subject, so don't attempt this feat with me unless you have the stamina! 
I should also mention that with my combinations of interests, once the full scope of them are known, it might at first glance, appear that they are, at best, at odds with one another, or in the most polar case, non-sequitur. I do confess that truly I have a draw to the oddest combination of interests and pursuits and a less common thought-life that is generally equated with a person of my interests. I find this to be a consistent interpretation when I discuss these interest sets with those whom I know generally, or with those who are closest to me. I find this to often be the case with me when considering my psycho-epistemic framework that glues together these interests and fascinations. I frequently find that people who are attracted to certain epistemic interest sets have a common pattern of relationship between them that match the mold of their valued group. More often than not, they have an overall psycho-epistemology that 'fits', in a popularly 'complimentary way', within their select communities in which they participate. For me however, it is a rare situation indeed if I match most of the popular mindset of any 'creedal' community, be they religious, non-religious, political or non-political. It is as though that I can 'Be' (dwell and feel at home) almost everywhere, and nowhere, simultaneously. Knowing this about myself has given me the opportunity to meet others 'where they are' in the given, various rhetorical communities in which I participate, albeit differently, even if we differ on various core points; differences serve as a great tool for learning, and better one's own interpretations, I have come to find.
On another, less serious note, I also enjoy exercise, nutrition, the outdoors, authentic interactions, and film theory / criticism, to name a few others.
Any further elaborations upon this information or other information not detailed here, simply drop me a line.
What I’m doing with my life
Furthering my pursuits in my areas of interest, building quality relationships with others that share those (and other non-related) interests, self-development via self-awareness / mindfulness practices, etc.
I’m really good at
1. Being playful, spontaneous, relaxed and just 'Being'
2. Providing intellectual and/or humorous discussion / conversation
3. Deconstructing psycho-epistemological value/belief systems, critical thinking
4. Spiritual polyamory, self-discipline, nutrition
5. Being what I call a 'relationship' counselor/philosopher of sorts (self-relationship, self-in-relation-with-another, etc)
6. Not saving or feeling the need to save the world from itself for my own sake.
7. Wondering why things that are actually 'healthy', be it related to food culture, relationships, or many other things for that matter, are not often popular, popularly practiced, or even considered. Do we really enjoy our own self-annihilation that much? Interesting.
The first things people usually notice about me
My eyes.
Favorite books, movies, shows, music, and food
Favorite word: frippery
Books: Markets not Captialism: Individualist Anarchism against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty by Gary Chartier; Queering Anarchism: Addressing and Undressing Power and Desire, Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals by Iris Murdoch, Passionate Marriage by David Schnarch, The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis by Leon R. Kass, Psychoanalysis and Buddhism: An Unfolding Dialogue by Jeremy D. Safran, Philosophy for Understanding Theology by Diogenes Allen, Eric O. Springsted, Prophets of Extremity: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida by Allan Megill, Models of Revelation by Avery Dulles, In a Different Voice by Carol Gilligan, etc.
Movies: The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014), Groundhog Day, Harold and Maude, I am Dina (2002), Castaway on the Moon, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Some Like it Hot (1959), Fur (2006),I Heart Huckabees, Untitled (2009), The Croods, Sense and Sensibility (1995), The King's Speech, Pleasantville, Waking Life, Remember the Titans, Neverending Story, Return to Oz, Jack Reacher, Creation - The Movie, Always (1989), Awakenings, etc.
Shows: The Paradise (2012), House, M.D., Conscious.TV, RuPaul's Drag race, North & South (2005), The Forsyte Saga (2002), Star Trek: TNG, DS9 and Voyager, Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth, Avatar: The Last Airbender, Prophets of Science Fiction, etc.
Music: All sorts.. 40s-90s.. http://youtu.be/wVHAQX5sSaU
Food: All organic diet with an aim toward alkalinity, nearly vegetarian (i.e. free-range eggs, greek yogurt, butter), non-hydrogenated oils, rarely consume flesh (i.e. if I do, it's grass-fed meat, sustainably raised), no wheat, no soy, no refined sugar, no corn, no artificial sweeteners, no pop, non-processed: basically whole foods.
Inspirational people: Byron Katie, Cesar Millan, quite a few others.. just ask.
The six things I could never do without
1. My husband, even though he is not really a 'thing'.. but hey! We've been together twelve years and married for nearly nine years. We've been 'open' for about two and a half years (see number four in the section 'things I am willing to admit' for an elaboration on this matter).
2. Tempur-pedic mattress and down pillows
3. Treadmill / exercise
4. Organic food
5. Intellectual discussion
6. meaningful relationships/connections
7. scenic outdoors: biking, walking, jogging
I spend a lot of time thinking about
1. Why many OKC profiles often talk about 'what a person does' (i.e. their profession and hobbies) rather than 'who they are' (i.e. what makes you, 'you')? It is perplexing to think about how 'what a person does' is somehow automatically assumed to describe one well enough in order to gauge their sense of inner personhood in part. That said, I am not saying that 'what one does' does not give some insight into one's self-orientation; yet it barely, if at all, allots for a better sense of justice done to them, for their sake of self- differentiation in relation to others, in terms of illuminating the reader about one's inner nature and ultimate concern(s): http://youtu.be/tf5nCPFBSHw
2. The differences and/or inconsistencies of self-presentation in people's OKC profiles versus their responses to OKC questions:
Most of the attention that I receive on OKC is usually from those who subscribe to the 'common' variety of thought in terms of their overall socially-preferred epistemic paradigms (i.e. socially common); this is not 'bad', it just is. I also tend to find that other men on OKC have profiles that conflict with their OKC questions in varying degrees related to their preferences, since males are the sex that predominately contact me.
And, when I say 'conflict', what I mean is that there are discrepancies with what they say they are about in relation to what they say they seeking via their OKC questions (i.e. strictly monogamous, monogamous, swingers, casual sex, desire kids, etc), and contact me anyway. This is fine, perhaps they see something in relation to my self-description and orientation in that they are willing to make an exception. That said, I'd prefer that they explain why they are willing to deviate from their OKCQ preferences to interact, assuming their preferences are significant to them, when I am a part of a relationships situation that is contrary to their initial relationship style preferences and desires. Again, I am not saying that I am not open to those who contact me with these conflicts; I just become quite curious why they specify their preferences to be otherwise and still choose to connect. That said, I am always open to interacting with people on a friendly level, regardless.
3. Subjects: Epistemology/philosophy, psychoanalytic psychology, object relations theory, literary theory, identities/identifications and their uses, hermeneutics, deconstructionism, moral philosophy, theory, art and art criticism, literature, film studies, communication/rhetoric, existential nihilism, the outdoors, mindfulness, The Work of Byron Katie and her epistemology, absurdities, slapstick comedy, exaggeration, double entendre, nuance, and tasteful forms of vulgarity, etc.
Reflection; for example: I occasionally ponder the fact that in less than 60-90 years from now, most living things that are currently alive, will have all passed away. This idea draws me to 'wake up' and appreciate each moment of the non-existent moment of Being-alive-in-relation; even if that means that what is subjectively recalled now, will/may continue, or cease to exist, after it has been experienced, once the mind that perceives it is no longer living. The question raised is, what meaning does one attach to making meaning if one disassociates a 'continuity of narrative meaning' to living if there isn't an 'afterlife' (i.e. regardless of the sort/kind of afterlife)? In other words, if you perish and do not believe in an afterlife (i.e. a sort of aspiration toward identity-continuity and constancy), what reason does one draw to opt for an existence if all of your existence, once one perishes, will be gone in the sense that one will not recall at all, that which one has experienced? So why continue to choose to experience experience (i.e. keep on living), even if you'll never know the difference of whether or not you lived a longer/shorter experience/life, once dead? I have a few reflective responses to this question, yet I'd be interested to hear other's responses to this idea if they'd like to entertain it.
4. Why some tend to find my epistemic differences with them in terms of relationship orientation to be 'unusual' in sum. I find this assertion to be particularly even more perplexing when their OKCQs reflect that they are willing to: a) sleep with someone on a first date, b) be in a relationship just for the sex, c) will to have sex with someone in 1-3 dates, etc; yet somehow find it 'wrong' or are not interested in exploring relationships that deviate from the 'serial monogamy' variety. They seem to be less concerned cultivating relationships that are innately invested in real modes of healthy bonding, boundaries and intimacy. I suppose it's the common paradigm: so long as one is not in a relationship, anything goes sexually, regardless if there is a time-tested connection with the person prior to sexually relations. I am quite the opposite in all of these matters, yet somehow, I am the oddity - I find this somewhat humorous.
5. I have been asked why I utilize OKC. My response to this inquiry is: First of all, even though I feel like a warm-extrovert conversation-wise, I am a social introvert. I tend to not innately seek interactions for the purpose of small talk, or simply for its own sake.
I also joined OKC because it gives me quite a bit of information about individuals at my fingertips, which I enjoy, rather than simply assessing them on their appearance alone, or trying to meet someone on the fly with little info, say on the street or in a store, etc. Also, due to my overall psycho-epistemology and being an outlier in an already outlier epistemic group on multiple fronts, what better way to locate said individuals then through this medium.
And lastly, in terms of my lengthy profile, I believe this gives others (who care to know) a chance to meet some of the authentic aspects of me as well, right off the bat, to get a feel for what I am about. You can meet me in this way, on my own terms, having quite a bit of knowledge of me that I otherwise would not share when first meeting someone; you'd know little of who you're talking to other than seeing just my friendly face gazing back at you.
6. A question that was directed to me in an email: "I'm curious about how your Christian beliefs fit within the framework of polyamory. I have felt for several years that individuals are constantly evolving and that traditional marriage is difficult because of that. The idea that there is that one "special person" that is a soulmate seems limiting to one's emotional or intellectual growth. I can imagine you might say that the heart of Christianity is to love other people more than yourself but who knows? You are individualistic enough that you might say something very surprising.  "
My response: Fascinating question and interpretation, thank you for your inquiry. To respond to the question well in a very rudimentary sense, my earlier participation within the theological discourse community of the tradition in which I participate, is not as urgent as it once was, at least for me, for structuring a response that reflects the tradition's interpretation and concerns to this inquiry that is ultimately bolstered for the intent of approval of it on their end. On that note, I tend to find quite a bit of worthwhileness in the idea of relationships and intimacy on the sacramental plane that may sound metaphysical and/or theologically based; that said, I personally do not think that traditional marriage to be too difficult per se, but rather, most individuals who pursue marriage may not ultimately be suited for each other for various reasons.
Relationship dynamics and preferences, at least for me, come from a different sense of interacting with individuals informed by my use of epistemology and overall relationship philosophy that is embedded in a sort of feminist, virtue-based morality/ethics. Most relationship dynamics, regardless if they are mono or poly, are complex and intricate; that is, at least those whose structuring and nurturing of said relationship are created in a thoughtful manner that reflect the outcome in which each orders themselves toward, which shape their overall functionality and sense of meaning/connection. The way I orient myself to poly is not the norm in terms of those whom I've seen self-identify as such (i.e. mine is not sex-driven, but bonding-driven as the source of the relationship). I think neither style ultimately limits one's emotional or intellectual growth in sum, even though each style (mono or poly) has the capacity to do so if done poorly, and both tend to encounter their own sets of issues for concern; yet, each relationship is only as decent as those involved - much like anything and everything else for that matter.
So, how would you describe your relationship styles and preferences? Have you found any of your styles/preferences to be flawed or hindering the potential connection that you're trying to establish in your relationships? How do you orient yourself to relationships? What has been your experience within the contexts of your relationships that you've had over in the past? How often have you found yourself and your (previous) significant other's on the same page in term of how you've related to each other and dealt with relationship conflicts, authenticity, honesty, etc?
On a typical Friday night I am
Spending time with my husband, as we walk outside together and laugh as we reference film quotes to each other in the midst of our conversations:
http://youtu.be/ITmnIY_H24o
The most private thing I’m willing to admit
1. Hmm, well, if an unexpected individual (family or otherwise) comes to my front door and knocks, I do not go to the door, nor will I answer the door, unless I am expecting to see them/someone. Likewise, I do not answer my phone if I do not recognize the phone number, and even when I do, depending on who it is, I do not always immediately answer my phone. The take way: when I am intent on playing 'Introvert' for the day (week, month, or year(s), I rarely allow that time to be interrupted.
2. I also do not like to be led to believe that something is one way, when in reality, it is actually another; particularly when it comes to pertinent matters that would impact my perception or decision making capacities. In other words, I prefer the truth, or the reality of the matter, in most all contexts, particularly in terms of relationships contexts/norms, in order that I/we both have the fullest amount of agency to make well-informed decisions related to any given matter. I do not prefer 'appearances' to 'reality'. Honesty gets you everywhere with me, even if it is something that I make not like to hear: always tell me. Take away: always err on the side of being forthright and do not impair my perceptions on matters in an unfitting way.
3. Note: I currently reside in the land of 10,000 lakes, where the state bird is the mosquito. I may change my location from time to time on my profile in order to find others in diverse locations that match my interests; it is a challenge to locate such people in my local area, and even within the greater population who at least entertain a common thematic hermeneutic of curiosity, as well as a shared general epistemological outlook and modality:
Q. "Let's say you have an excellent match on OkCupid and discover that you really like each other, but you live very far apart ( 1,000 miles/1,600 km). Would you consider starting a long distance relationship?"
A. I say 'yes' here because I really don't expect to find 'my match' a block away from me considering my overall outlook on life, lifestyle preferences, etc. Besides, distance can easily be remedied if there is a mutual preference and desire to live closer to one another; that said, of course I'd prefer to live nearer to my 'excellent match' rather than farther away.
4. In rare cases, I am open to non-promiscuious-based non-monogamy embedded in feminist, essence(/soul)-based (rather than needs-based), virtue-based, non-hierarchal, non-veto-based, polyfidelity-esque relationships with a flair toward relationship anarchy that serves as primary to the whole of the model in the mix with demisexual-sapiosexual accents. I say 'rare' because it is very uncommon for me to be romantically attracted to another in a way that I desire to integrate and orient my Self to the entirety of their being, and/or that there is a shared and valued relationship epistemological methodology held in common. Unlike the common rung of most styles of poly relationships that I have seen and heard about, the way I integrate this style of relating is not based on a consumeristic model of dating or loving, nor is it about 'dating a person to fill a void that another is unable to'; I call these sorts of dynamics: 'pothole poly relationships'. While I enjoy deconstructing elements of all forms of identity, the way a significant other is composed in their totality is a central aspect of what attracts me to them; not for them to service only some remote aspect of my personality that is left unsatisfied by engaging only a rudimentary part of their sense of self solely for my benefit and have physical relations with them to 'seal the deal'! Ack, absurd! Such is the OPPOSITE of what I am about. So, in other words, I am an outlier in an already outlier group; what else isn't new? I seek authentic soul-connections that defy the standard modes of connection. I am very satisfied in terms of the totality of my self and current life circumstances and prefer to share and experience said satisfaction with those whom I care deeply about. Also, as stated above, one can probably bet on the former (a quality friendship) rather than the later (a very intellectually, emotionally revealing connection that may lead to a physical relationship). In other words, I do not require nor desire direct, immediate access to a person's genitals in order to have an quality friendship and/or relationship with said individual. Take away: I am not a sexual 'materialist', if you will.
Put another way, I am a non-promiscuous non-monogamist, bisexual, demisexual-sapiosexual, who practices holistic polyamory as primary (secondary and tertiary), with an overall appearance or lean toward mutually 'opted for' polyfidelity-esque configurations, with an appreciation for non-hierarchical, no-veto-based, with an emphasis toward relationship anarchy dynamics. Quality platonic relationships have just as much import for me as my romantic relationships. I also incorporate a feminist epistemic emphasis, greatly value self-awareness, and place great import toward psychological health of all involved prior to any relationship engagement and development, along with applications of virtue ethics and mindfulness, with a nod toward sacramentality /metaphysical tripartite (i.e. soul, mind, body) understandings of sexuality and personhood inside this mix. Sexual expression is all about deep bonding for me, and not primarily novelty-based, and I take its expression very seriously.
I have different and differentiated expressions of affection via my sense of agency in terms of how I orient myself to people based upon relating to them on multiple levels as they pertain to these categories: acquaintances, new friends, close friends, and romantic affectionates to whom I am committed. I value gratification delay related to all relationship matters, particularly relationships that I am currently developing and cultivating, and view verbal consent as a 'low bar' measure, even though an important prerequisite, to proceed with any activity: I believe that relationship pacing is an essential and important. I apply relationship pacing criteria as an ethic of care to self and others, as I prefer to get to know another very well prior to even heading in the direction of any relationship progression or evolution for the sake of assessing the overall health, overt degrees compatibility and wellbeing for each involved when considering these and other connection possibilities. I am for symbiotic relationships, as opposed to deprived/unhealthy parasitic relationships.
I primarily practice my sexuality and/or sexual expression within the confines of romantic, committed connections solely. I may practice non-sexual sensual touch with those who I feel close to in various senses, and trust, which is earned trust. I am in favor of an essence-based (not needs-based) model of poly (which I know have written up) that serves as a personal explanation as to how I appropriate myself to this particular 'poly' relationship dynamic and practice.
Video: What is polyamory: http://youtu.be/8W6fcCjMTmM
Article: What is polyfidelity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyfidelity
Video: What is Spiritual Polyamory: http://youtu.be/OaEQI70yTdE
Article: Polygamy Isn't Polyamory: http://polytripod.blogspot.com/2014/02/polygamy-isnt-polyamory.html
Article: 'How to Explore Polyamory and Maintain a Connection With your Partner': http://www.lifeontheswingset.com/18087/explore-polyamory-maintain-connection-partner/
Open Relationships Reduce Jealousy? Twelve Surprising Facts About Non-Monogamy:
http://www.alternet.org/sex-amp-relationships/open-relationships-reduce-jealousy-12-surprising-facts-about-non-monogamy
I take issue with the idea of participating in poly from primarily a 'needs-based' perspective (no surprise there). I also take issue with monogamy automatically being equated to a sort of 'monopoly', as the 'monopoly' only ought to be granted if someone meets all of one's 'needs' out of a sort of 'market monopoly' analogy (no surprise here also); yet, most of this discussion, including of a lot of principles discussed, I support:
http://youtu.be/-uTfo-hIt_4
And another elaboration:
More 'needs-based' arguments that I think are faulty based upon their transience and 'whim-based' nature, but hey, I say 'no thanks'. Also, 'contracts' (i.e. tit-for-tat) are well and fine yet very 'dry'/legalistic, while I am all about 'covenant-based' long-term connections/association in the most ideal and best sense; said assumes one or both parties voluntarily enter into this arrangement, as in love and/or the connection does not cease solely if there is a fracture so long as it is repairable/healable. That said, however, this does not mean that one gains free-range opportunity for repeatable violation(s). In other words, there is a higher propensity for a practice of charity and forgiveness.
Also, the implied acceptability of the variability of people changing overtime and the impact of that on said relationships, that being the source of the contract and why it is favored, while I recongnize this as an issue, doesn't say much to the point of a connection being that said connections grows deeper in the relation in itself due to personal changes, and favoring the relationship growth as primary above solely self-referrential, need-based arguments, that would ultimately terminate it since self somehow becomes unsatisfied/ unsatiated. Ack.
Otherwise, I like the last bit of argument (and other elements in parts of the entire presentation), yet in some sense, Lauren then refutes 'needs' in 'needing a partner', however still retains contracts based on needs? Odd. lol
http://youtu.be/NaNxQL2lczU
Article: My Problem With Monogamy - Comfort Instead of Happiness: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/louisa-leontiades/my-problem-with-monogamy_b_4095630.html
While I think there are decent ideas in the article above, I however think it is a bit presumptuous to associate automatic control or fear with 'monogamy' relational models in sum. Again, I am not in favor of supportive arguments for polyamory that are based in notions of 'needs' or inclinations. A fun topic of conversation would be around the idea of control and what constitutes it, such as preferences, pursuits toward particular telos, etc. Is it possible to retain a relationship without there being a preference concerning its general nature or modality, etc, be it platonic or otherwise? To what degree do telos between the two share a preferred general trajectory? In other words, to what degree is that ultimately feasible?Associations are usually structured by a shared pairing of values of one kind or another which more often than not negate a nonchalantness of interaction.
----
Polyamory Experts Speak On Non-Monogamy - "Special Arrangements" Discussion Panel:
http://youtu.be/4iDluKrMvYw
Starting near 21 minutes in the above video link: "What is monogamy? We all use this word, but what do we mean when we use it? What is its signification? l mean, typically, monogamy used to mean one person for life, now it means one person at a time. That is one massive change. We arrive at our committed relationships in adulthood most of the time, at least in the West, having been sexual nomads. So monogamy, what, as sexual exclusiveness? On some level that you could say at least at this time, at least in or circles, monogamy exists primarily in reality; meaning that it doesn't exist in your memories, and it doesn't exist in your fantasies, so it exists in reality. That is a very different story from my parents or your grandparents at this stage. Then the notion of this is very different when you arrive to the notion of 'committed relationships', marriage or whatever you call it as a virgin or when you arrive, and can actually remember what it was like with another."
--
Article: Ten realistic rules for 'good' non-monogamous relationships
http://sexgeek.wordpress.com/2007/06/10/10-realistic-rules-for-good-non-monogamous-relationships/
Article: Compulsory Monogamy in The Hunger Games
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mimi-schippers-phd/hunger-games-monogamy_b_4384596.html
Article: Dos and don’ts for happy polyamorous relationships
https://www.morethantwo.com/polytips.html
The problem with polynormativity: https://sexgeek.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/theproblemwithpolynormativity/
Turning Points in Identity and Theology: Bisexual Women Choosing Between Monogamous and Polyamorous Relationships
http://www.margaretrobinson.com/turningpointsinidentity.pdf
"If sexuality is fundamental to our humanity, and if our ability to love is rooted in our creation in the image of God, then the choices we make about who to love and how to love them are inherently theological. Queer theology asserts that it is not only heterosexual love that is sacramental—queer love too transcends itself.58 Formulations that exclude the experience of gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals will be intentionally impoverished to the degree that they ignore our experience of this human vocation. As I will show in Chapter Four, images of God’s love can also reinforce sexual practices such as monogamy or polyamory."
Against the veto (or, fear by any other name…): http://sexgeek.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/against-the-veto-or-fear-by-any-other-name%85/
Polyamory and feminism: https://freaksexual.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/polyamory-and-feminism/
Polyamorous Women, Sexual Subjectivity and Power: http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/attachments/129592/polyamorous-women-sexual-subjectivity-and-power.pdf
Love without borders? Intimacy, identity and the state of compulsory monogamy: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/jamie-heckert-love-without-borders-intimacy-identity-and-the-state-of-compulsory-monogamy
Polyamory and Queer Anarchism: Infinite Possibilities for Resistance: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/susan-song-polyamory-and-queer-anarchism-infinite-possibilities-for-resistance
Philosophical Advice About The Friend Zone:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camels...campaign=buffer
Poly people I can do without:
http://www.heartless-bitches.com/rants/manipulator/polypeople.shtml
Why Do People Choose Polyamory?:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/love-without-limits/201008/why-do-people-choose-polyamory
Seven Forms of Non-Monogamy: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-polyamorists-next-door/201407/seven-forms-non-monogamy
So, What Is Feminist Porn? Find Out From a Woman Who Makes It: http://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/news/a16343/tristan-taormino-feminist-porn-interview/
D/s Play: http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2013/10/ds-play/
Relationship Anarchy and a Culture of Consent: http://livingwithinreason.com/2014/01/24/relationship-anarchy-and-a-culture-of-consent/
Philosophy of Relationship Anarchy: Why We Make Rules: http://livingwithinreason.com/2014/08/01/why-we-make-rules/
Philosophy of Relationship Anarchy: Should We Make Rules?: http://livingwithinreason.com/2014/08/08/should-we-make-rules/
Philosophy of Relationship Anarchy: Why We Make Rules: http://livingwithinreason.com/2014/08/01/why-we-make-rules/
Philosophy of Relationship Anarchy: What Do We Want: http://livingwithinreason.com/2015/01/23/what-do-we-want-2/
---
5. That my backside is numb from all the hours I spent editing my profile! I am sure it requires more editing, forgive me. lol
6. I wrote my profile with the intent of scaring away about 99.89% of male OKC users for various reasons.
I blame community college philosophy courses for ruining this poor bitch's brain
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 19:21
to get laid
