kiya: (bluejay)
( Sep. 28th, 2009 12:45 am)
Context: [livejournal.com profile] whispercricket has brought KJ up to sleep on [livejournal.com profile] teinedreugan, since she's too fussy to go down in the cradle.



As the other bedroom door shuts, I hear the context being presented.

(No, I don't know why this CD identifies in those characters. The other one in the set identifies in English. I can't be arsed fixing it.)
So, a bunch of people on rasfc were discussing, in the usual newsgroup-disorganised way, the whole "Can God make a rock so large He can't lift it" notion. As it happens, [livejournal.com profile] arawen and I touched on that in a conversation about two weeks ago (I think we got there from 'tired of dealing with people who think that one's faith can be refuted by reference to a god that is completely irrelevant to it'), and he made a comment I found amusing about the physics of the question.

So, in fairly normal way, I posted a comment to that effect into the thread, identifying [livejournal.com profile] arawen as my boyfriend because, inane as that word is, it adequately contexts who I was talking with, within social norms of identification, for purposes of continuing conversation.

Though apparently, the matter was quite notable to someone, who has proceeded to interrogate me at length about why I referred to my boyfriend, whether this meant there was some sort of weird philosophical disputation involved with [livejournal.com profile] teinedreugan, why I felt the need to not anonymise my relationship into functional nonexistence, or some other such stuff. It's gotten increasingly bizarre. (The latest bizarrity is about whether using such a specific identifier is too much information and who's to judge such a thing -- which leaves me with a sort of wicked, trollish impulse to use accurate words that properly describe the relationship, the ones that I don't use because people find them alarming. I have not responded to this, as he has indicated that he does not want to talk with me about it, or for that matter [livejournal.com profile] brooksmoses, he just wants to make little snide pot shots in the hope that someone will agree with him somewhere, I guess.)

And this is all because the fellow knows I'm married and not monogamous, and thus there must be some Profound Deep Reason for me to mention my boyfriend, other than, y'know, it being normal to refer to one's partners in conversation as such, at least on my home planet. It was apparently this mention that led the fellow to claim my bafflement at the question of why I had not consulted [livejournal.com profile] teinedreugan (about his opinions of snarky dismissals of asinine philosophical masturbation attempting to refute a god none of us has any personal interest in) was disingenuous. (That was a godawful sentence. Oh well. I'll parentheticalise a chunk for clarity.)

Apparently, just treating a partner as a partner is remarkable, bizarre, a marked case worthy of comment, to at least some people -- it seems that most of the rest of the thread thinks he's the person who's making no damn sense, which is reassuring for a change. It was suggested that it would be superior to refer to him as a friend, to avoid raising the possibility of some sort of profound philosophical war about the nature of irrelevant deities, but even if I didn't find that to be an offensive suggestion, I am really not comfortable with the notion that I'm responsible for controlling someone else's deranged imagination. Herd your own invisible pink unicorns, please.


Also, in the context of this the synchronisity of this post amuses the hell out of me.
    Whitney unidles, laughs and laughs and laughs.
    Otto [[livejournal.com profile] blacktarrant] ?
    Brooks [[livejournal.com profile] brooksmoses] peers quizzically. Share?
    Otto says, "Or are you laughing at the 'g2g, my mom's cancer is on fire'?"
    Otto says, "I sporfled when I saw that someone had used 'BRB Tornado'."
    Whitney says, "So [[livejournal.com profile] teinedreugan] came downstairs and petulantly explained that he was *not* going to sleep in the wet spot, and would I help him change the sheets?"
    Otto giggles.
    Otto says, "Wait, you mean, guys will sleep in the wet spot? Damnit! I've been getting shafted all these years."
    Whitney says, "You see, last night as one of my minor tasks for proper minionage for [[livejournal.com profile] arawen], I got a mug of water, due to fluid loss from exertion. This was, amazingly enough, not all consumed; half of it was left on the bedside table."
    Otto says, "Oh dear."
    Whitney says, "Now, at some point in here Arthur stuck his face in it and tried to drown himself. On the third go he figured out how to stick his face in without submerging his nose ..."
    Whitney says, "I thought no more of it."
    Whitney says, "There was a mysterious upstairs thump a few hours back ..."
    Otto repeats, "Oh dear."
    Whitney says, "I'm not sure if this is 'life with cats' or 'fun jokes involving one's husband and boyfriend' or some strange amalgamation of both, but I am laughing my fucking ass off."
    Otto giggles.
    Whitney says, "And washing the sheets needed done anyway, and counts as my second useful task for the day, so I don't have to catalogue another fucking box of books when I'm done with this one."
    Otto snickers more, decides to wander off to bed, where there is no wet spot, thank god.


*hits forward on iTunes until it comes up with something funny for music*
[Samhchair] says: Hail, Marauders. ;)
Eagleeyee waves at you.
[Dooky] says: hey there
[Samhchair] says: <--- Ceallach's wife.
[Eagleeyee] says: ah
[Dooky] says: well, hello Mrs Ceallach
You grin wickedly.

More conversation cut. )
The Dope has thrown up another polygamy-legalisation thread, which has some reasonably productive conversation in it, aside from what I shall term the golddigging whore problem.

Specifically: a couple of people expressed that if polygamy were legal, the wealthy, powerful men would collect sufficiently all of the women that the poorer people would be deprived of spouses.

I just responded to one of the bits of sexism -- the standard presumption that it's only men who are interested in multiple relationships.

I'm finding myself completely boggled by the impending golddigging whore shortage that these people are worried about. I mean, setting aside the fact that the actors, politicians, and other denizens of the supermarket tabloid world don't seem to have any problems collecting as many MOTAS as strike their fancy right now, and this doesn't seem to deprive the rest of the world of a reasonably adequate dating pool.

But there's the whole ... okay, you're upset that someone who's primarily interested in being an adjunct to power and money may be going somewhere far, far away from you? Leaving behind all the normal people who are interested in finding partners that they love and care about, or at least can shag satisfactorily?

It's one of those things that leaves me wondering what the hell alternate dimension people are writing from. There was the guy who posted that he expected that most women were in the golddigging whore category, and I just wonder which one of us is the space alien. I've met maybe one person in my life who might qualify, and since we were in school at the time and thus nobody we associated with had significant money in the first place it's hard to tell whether or not she grew into one. I can't imagine my sample size is all that damn weird.

[ Must change the music to what's playing now, hah. ]

It's one of those places where -- if it wasn't so fucking bizarre -- would leave me wondering, again, how I wound up on this planet. Here I'm pretty sure those other people are the ones who recently stepped through the transdimensional portal without noticing the transition.

It was nonetheless nice to see [livejournal.com profile] queenofhalves link [livejournal.com profile] bitchphd, who mentioned Crittenden's book, which is, alas, about the universe I grew up in, more's the pity, but it at least reminds me that I'm not alone.
kiya: (watcher)
( Sep. 26th, 2006 12:38 am)
People who don't read alt.poly will probably not have the context for this in its entirety. Short version of the context: the person who emailed me is someone I consider hostile to women, to women like me in particular, and who joined alt.poly under the presumption that the women there would be easy and thus do him.

Conversation cut. )
Tags:
A stray poll thread in IMHO on the SDMB (if that makes no sense to you, translate it as 'a particular subforum of a message board [livejournal.com profile] lilairen reads' and it'll be fine) was asking about how many sexual partners people had had.

I what the helled and posted my stats, because I'm the world's most boring nonmonogamous person ever, and I say I'm the most boring nonmonogamous person ever in my original post to the thread. The thread goes on, and a few people express skepticism about numbers, and the original poster says, more or less, "Hey, come on people, it's not like we're going to tell your spouse."

I pointed out that my husband reads the board, but my boyfriend doesn't, not that either of them doesn't know this stuff.

Get a reply (from someone else) of, "Um... what? A husband and a boyfriend- do either of them know about the other?"

I'm not surprised by the "Um, what?", really, as that's not uncommon to being out, but the question ... presumes I'm not only the sort of unethical betraying asshole who would conceal important relationships from important people, but so stupid I'd expose myself in a post where I was pointing out that it was possible my husband might read the thread.
Tags:
A random link: Spong reviews The Da Vinci Code.

Am back at home after a busy weekend.

Let's see. Stuff: [livejournal.com profile] arawen picked me up Saturday morning though I don't think we got out of the house until after noon. Had random sushi for lunch. Helping with bookcases was diverted by the need to deal with an invasion of ants which were carrying their larvae up the front of his house and into a hole up under the eaves, which was behaviour Not Approved Of. So there was agitated ant-slaughtering and roof repair. And afterwards a great deal of enjoying of each other's company (which left me with a slightly dislocated right hip).

Sunday there was much work on bookcases, which started before I got up because I didn't sleep well and so stayed in bed for an hour and a half or so later than [livejournal.com profile] arawen did. Funniest help request was, "Could I use you as a stand?" Various things were accomplished. I think we watched a couple of episodes of an anime, plus also some Babylon 5 commentary which provoked me into reading [livejournal.com profile] lysana's rendition of how Stephen Furst got the role of Vir, though that may have been Saturday. We went out for what I'm pretty sure was our first doing-something-as-a-couple sort of dinner, and thus I consumed vast quantities of sushi (including, as it happened, my first fish-based sushi -- this is extremely impressive, as I haven't willingly consumed fish in probably over twenty years because fishy-smell leaves me feeling ill). Much affirming snuggling and talking, even if [livejournal.com profile] arawen does have a marbles in a funnel problem.

Slept better last night, woke up before the alarm, woke up [livejournal.com profile] arawen. He made me breakfast. More carpentry, in which I was minimally helpful mostly in the fetching and carryingness. Had leftover sushi for lunch. Went to hardware store (minioning mostly limited to pushing the cart and answering, "Is there anything else I've been whining that I don't have?" with "Time, world domination, and a pony"), stuff. Eventually came home, said hi to [livejournal.com profile] teinedreugan and [livejournal.com profile] suzimoses, helped them heckle The Chronicles of Riddick, watched the end of the ballgame, and saw [livejournal.com profile] arawen off to the airport where he is collecting [livejournal.com profile] whispercricket from her weekend of dealing with crazy people.

Thus was my weekend of sex and carpentry. (With bonus sushi and ants.)
they all just nod and sigh, but I made a run at something real and they never even tried.

("Spectators", the Crüxshadows.)

I wonder why ... )
[ Couldn't post this last night, when it was written, for technical reasons. ]

I have nothing to say about the ballgame. (As opposed to not having anything to say. If that makes sense.) I have gotten no work done for days, so I don't have wordcount to post. Thus, I continue on with the activism thing, and ramble.

I'm doing pretty well on the appropriate music for these.

Again, cut for length. )
This is one of the pieces I'm intending to submit to [livejournal.com profile] kythryne's The Right to Marry: GLBT and Polyamorous People Speak Out About Marriage Equality project.

Cut; I expect this to get long. )
One of these days I'll learn how to recognise when people aren't actually going to hear what I'm trying to say and stop trying to argue with them. Sometimes I can do this ahead of time -- I failed to post something to alt.callahans earlier today because I could tell that the person I would have responded to wouldn't hear me, and it would just embroil me in another pointless argument. (And [livejournal.com profile] polyamory is giving me enough pointless arguments right now.)

And I can do it with particular people. I can not wind up in a fight with a Certain Someone when that favorite old chestnut "Those wicked polyfolk who keep saying that it's not about sex are just pandering to a sex-negative culture!" gets trotted out yet again. I've had that argument before, with that person as well as with others, several times.

Bleh.

Polyamory isn't about sex. It's not about having one's needs met. It's not about outgrowing swingings. It's not about enlightenment. It's not about sacred sex. It's not about world change. It's not about a lack of commitment. It's not about a superfluity of commitment. It's not about kink. Individual polyfolk may have practices that have to do with any of those things. But none of them are what polyamory is "about".

For me, polyamory isn't "about" anything.

. . . though it seems to be a source of endless argument with someone who is quite bound to tell me that I'm either lying or deluded about myself.

Clearly, my wisdom isn't mature enough, because I'm not too tired to argue.
Tags:
kiya: (hawk)
( Sep. 7th, 2002 02:30 am)
Wow, the changer's playing "Evidence" a lot lately. I guess whatever bit of my brain that twigs to that bit is in a persistent holding pattern until Stuff Resolves. I wonder if it would go away if I downloaded the video.

So for complicated reasons related to this twit that [livejournal.com profile] rivka was afflicted by, I went and looked at the Loving More websi. . . aaaah, don't look, [livejournal.com profile] oneironaut, they say "lovestyle", they're not just like people who say "lovestyle".

I'm not feeling up to dealing with the weirdness of the attitude towards jealousy, the irritation at the whole thing being tied up in "the context of a larger shift toward a more balanced, peaceful and sustainable way of life", or the gratuitous usage of "Oh shit, here comes an S!" apostrophes. Well, one apostrophe, I don't remember if I saw another one, but I'm an unforgiving little bastard.

No, I just want to take this sentence (from their FAQ) and stare at it a little.

The commitment is not to each other, it's to Love.



This is the stunning new approach to relationships that they're hoping will sweep the nation in a cloud of wuv, joy, and little fluffy bunnies? With Strategically Placed Capital Letters, no less.

Looks like airy-fairy crap to me. (And it's surrounded in the FAQ with we-language to boot.)

Sheeyit. I can't make polyamory work without commitments to and from my partners. I guess that means I'm not cut out for "the lifestyle".

I'll have to make do with my life.

Shucky-darn.
Tags:
(By "this" I mean "argue with Tal".)

Though at least this time I did not respond to his "Don't you agree that my conclusion drawn from my personal biases is the case?" with anything other than "No."

Ramblings about possessiveness )

But enough Martian anthropology.

I've been dealing with depression again. And I'm actually dealing at the moment; my personal goal is to do one significant and useful thing per day, and also to remember to eat each day. Two days ago, I got about two thirds of the way through cleaning the cruft off the living room rug so I could vacuum it. Yesterday, I cleaned out Kunda's favorite lurking log, which had accumulated lots of skin and such and thus needed to be blasted clean with the hose. Today I have done laundry (not sure how many useful things that counts as; it was put in the wash, and transferred to the dryer, and I may remember to take it out and bring it upstairs when it's done). I have unloaded and loaded the dishwasher, though I haven't started it, because I have not the brains to either work out how to get the hose attached to the faucet or figure out why the door won't close.

This is useful inasmuch as it keeps me from feeling like a complete waste of oxygen.

I also finally beat the scenario in Kohan that was aggravating me. And the next one, for good measure. But those don't count as useful, even if they were personal goals.
kiya: (Default)
( Aug. 3rd, 2002 03:51 am)
Somewhat unexpected; I had another one of those 'Hey, when did I write this entire screenful of text? I thought I'd just done a sentence or two. . .' moments.

Though I know I'm too tired when I start a sentence with 'Dawn;'s'. Too much MUSHing, too much MUSHing. So I go to bed now.

Today's bafflement: why does this person posting on why he thinks permitting polygamy is a legitimate concern speak only to the question of men collecting women in apparent ignorance of the idea that women might like to collect men? (I'm torn as to whether this is the polygamy/polygyny thing that gets me in a twist or the fact that it seems to not occur to some people that women have a sexuality independent of Their Man. [livejournal.com profile] oneironaut said that it was probably "Yes", which I suspect is both accurate and a bit depressing.)
Tags:
kiya: (Default)
( Jul. 29th, 2002 04:15 pm)
Asbb-r got onto the subject of adultery. (Discussion of the lives of baseball players, I think was the context.)

Someone made a comment about how "That can't be illegal, can it? I can't imagine." So I cited the Massachusetts General Laws on the subject in response to him. (Hey, it's a Boston Red Sox newsgroup; MGL is probably close enough.)

Another poster responded somewhat irately to the effect of, "And that law hits you whether you're cheating or not!"

I wrote him privately saying, "Uh -- pardon me if this is an intrusive question, but my curiosity has hit me. Are you in a non-traditional relationship of some sort yourself?"

Today the answer came down: Yes.

This makes three or four assbr regulars (counting me) that I know of as being interested in or involved in multi-person or open relationships. (Me, one person who popped up on alt.poly recently, this guy, and someone I'd been in email conversation with a while back who was curious and not sure if he had a personal interest.) It's not something that fits my prejudices of what to expect of the newsgroup, so it pleases me particularly to see counterexamples.
Tags:
Same source as the last one, more or less.
Feeling a little less fuzzed-out now. )
Tags:
Some people, in response to the . . . entertaining argument over on [livejournal.com profile] polyamory, have made comments about what beingpolyness means to them.

I was thinking of doing the same thing, but I'm not actually sure I can make the question meaningful enough for me to do so.
Ramblings, possibly containing content even if I am feeling bleary )
.

Profile

kiya: (Default)
kiya

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags