Category: Relationships

How To Feel Your Feelings And Why You Should Try

2 Comments

Co-written by Aida Manduley and Anna Stern

You’re cozy in your bed, drifting off to sleep when a voice calls out: “I’m scared! I need you!” You leap out of bed, heart pounding, and rush into the child’s room. He is sitting up in bed, his face stained with tears, cuddling a stuffed walrus. “Sweetie,” you say in the kindest voice you can muster, “it’s time to sleep now. I was asleep. You need to sleep too.” You give him a hug, he lies down and you go back to bed. Fifteen minutes later: “I’m awake! I need you!” Back into the child’s room, less patience now. “Baby it’s time to go to sleep.” “But I NEED you.” “We all need to sleep. Our bodies need sleep. Lie down now and I’ll sing you a song.” You sing a lullaby and tiptoe back to bed. Begin to close your eyes, and the child calls again.

A friend told one of us this story recently. At her wit’s end, she talked to his teacher who said, “he just wants to feel heard.” Instead of reminding kids of the rules, rationalizing, or focusing on soothing, you’ve got to home in on what they feel in the moment. You have to take them very seriously and ensure they believe you. “Use a lot of ‘really’,” the teacher said. “I really, really hear that you are scared.” Or “I can see that you are really, really sad right now.” When children hear this, they know you have connected their meaning to their behavior, they feel heard, and they can let go.

If you’re wondering whether you accidentally clicked on a parenting article, here is the connection you may be waiting for: Our feelings can be just like small children. They have a deep need to be heard, to be held, without judgment or rejection. To be held with compassionate curiosity. How can you be with yourself in a way that says “I am here. This is okay. Whatever comes up right now is okay,” especially if you’ve been taught the opposite?

In this article, we’ll go over what can happen to buried and inconvenient feelings, the science of emotion and survival, and how you can manage and process all these things differently and/or with new awareness.

Feelings Gone Underground or in Disguise 

The tricky part here is that kids (and feelings) don’t always make “rational” sense (and sometimes they do, but you don’t have the tools to understand them or are speaking different languages). When you ignore feelings, they don’t go away; they go underground. When they’re buried, they don’t stay buried forever. Once they’ve gone under, they often come back in even more confusing, less recognizable ways.

Feelings don’t always have the language to tell you what is happening or why. They only have the crude tools to make themselves heard. They manifest in adjacent feelings and other behaviors that may be hard to connect to the “originating” event or situation.

  • Explosiveness and irritability: You’re filled with rage in certain situations – maybe your boss didn’t reply to your email, or your mom cut your toast in half when you wanted to “eat it big.” Maybe you snap at someone when they interrupt you while you’re working at your computer, or respond curtly when they ask how you’re doing. Either way, when explosive anger and irritability are disproportionate to the situation in front of you, it’s a hint the feelings are coming from (or being magnified by) somewhere/something else.
  • Inertia: Getting out of bed, getting dressed, showering, eating – basic daily tasks become a struggle. A child might refuse to put their shoes on when going to play with a friend who has been mean to them or lie on the floor when they are supposed to go to school but are not feeling confident in a subject. You may find yourself blocked when trying to write something and stare blankly at your notebook for hours, or perhaps keep delaying getting ready for a date until you’ve made yourself so late that you have to cancel instead of show up.
  • Physical sensations: Headaches. Tiredness. Lots of poops. No poops. Tight chest. Shortness of breath. Twitching eyes. Muscle tension. Any bodily sensation can be an avenue for feelings to express themselves. For example, one of the authors of this article—as a small child, before they could explain feelings of fear and apprehension—experienced them as stomachaches. On a trip to a theme park, they kept asking to go to the bathroom every time they’d get in line for a big intense ride. For them, stomachaches meant “obviously you need to use the bathroom,” so they would go to the bathroom. They’d feel temporarily better (because they were away from the scary ride), but they wouldn’t actually do anything in the bathroom itself, much to their own confusion. Eventually, they and their family figured out their stomach hurt because they were afraid, and what they needed was soothing and reassurance, not a bathroom visit.
  • Avoidance: You pick up your phone, turn on the TV, go on Facebook, anything to distract yourself or buy yourself time from the thing you’re avoiding. This can also look like not answering emails from a professor who asks about a missed deadline, getting lost in daydreams frequently, leaving a friend’s texts unread, etc. In a child, this can often present like outright ignoring something that’s right in front of them as if it simply didn’t exist.
  • Difficulty naming: You make plans with a friend, and when they ask you how you are you say “fine,” and then go home frustrated that they didn’t support you. A child calls out again and again in the night, sounding fearful, but when you go to them they say “I can’t find my bear.” Saying the fear or worry out loud feels impossible.

Do any of these situations sound familiar?

Inconvenient Feelings and Directing Them

But I don’t want this feeling, you tell yourself. This is such a bad time. It’s not the right way to feel – I’m not being fair to my partner, my boss, my friend. I’m exaggerating. I shouldn’t care about this. I’m being childish. This is irrational—there’s no need for this. Other oppressive and normalizing forces like to show up here too – often gender. I need to man up and get over it. I’m being needy. Extra. Too much. Hysterical.

You can think of a million reasons why the feeling isn’t welcome, isn’t convenient, does not deserve the space it’s taking up. You push it away, push it down, reject or ignore it. You find ways to quiet it. Janet Bystrom, a therapist in Minneapolis, says we have three choices about what to do with this energy:

  • Point it at ourselves (fuck me) – substance use, self-harm, dissociation
  • Point it at others (fuck you) – aggression and physical violence
  • Point it at the sky (fuck this) – discharge the feeling safely through movement, art, communication

Here, let’s just acknowledge that options in the first two categories might serve us very well, until they don’t. It’s not always safe to feel feelings, or to inhabit our bodies. If we are experiencing ongoing abuse or trauma. If we are experiencing dysphoria (a sense of disconnect and unhappiness, frequently tied to ways that one’s appearance may not line up with one’s internal sense of self). If we are in a medical or family crisis that requires us to remain organized and productive in the face of big emotions.

Even as we move toward making space for and accepting feelings, can we also be compassionate with ourselves about the reasons we’ve delayed feeling them? Can we honor the roles our survival strategies have played in protecting us,  thank them for their work, and let them know they can rest for now, or at least for a bit? (And of course, if you are still in a situation where you are surviving with some of the strategies named here, trust your assessment of safety and, if it’s available, seek guidance and support).

But let’s say we’re safe. Let’s say we have most of the support we need and are relatively stable. What do we do with these feelings we’ve been avoiding? 

The Science of Survival and Feelings

We carve our own neural pathways with our actions. A famous adage in the field of neuropsychology is “neurons that fire together, wire together.” If we come to a fork in the trail, and one branch is flat, well-tended, and clear of debris, while the other is steep, rocky, and full of thorns, most of us will choose the clear path. It seems to take less effort in the moment (though the effects of that choice may have longterm implications).  It’s familiar. We know where it leads. 

Striking out through the brambles requires more equipment, more energy, more persistence. But a magical thing happens when we keep choosing the overgrown path. We begin to clear it. We bring our machete. We wear hiking boots. When we come to that fork again, choosing the overgrown path is a little bit easier. Of course, there will be days when we are tired, when we are overwhelmed, when we must choose the familiarity of the clear path. There is no shame in that. But when we choose the overgrown path, we make that path more available.  

All this is to say that the new path may not feel comfortable; it may feel dangerous, and even viscerally wrong. When we have been trained to react in certain ways, our bodies may resist changing—and of course they will! They think changing will put us in some mortal danger! And, in fact, if we have a history of using suppression as a strategy to manage tough feelings, starting to open up to feelings overall will likely feel worse at first. (This is a common experience among folks working through emotional changes; stick with it if you can.)

So when have come to a place of realizing we do indeed need to change, we have to get ready to manage that new set of feelings and reactions. This doesn’t mean we have to dismiss our gut reactions, but that we have to dialogue with them in a new and different way. It means we have to take our worries, assumptions, and immediate reactions through a few more filters before we accept or use them.

For example, people who have become hypervigilant due to trauma pay attention to a lot of ambient cues of danger. Sometimes these cues signal realistic and imminent danger, but often they do not. Figuring out which is which can be very tricky when your body’s been trained to see them all as equally dangerous threats – getting on the subway taking on the quality of intense danger, for example. Conversely, some people are “hypovigilant” and rarely notice threats even when the red flags are glaring to those around them. (Read more about the science of this and “the window of tolerance” here from the perspective of a therapist.)

What Can You Do?

There is no magic one-size-fits-all recipe for how to shift your relationship with your feelings and create more space for them, but it’s key to go slow rather than trying to rush it. Self-compassion as you figure out this new path is also essential, because you’re doing something pretty damn hard—figuring out how to change the wiring you’ve been building for years, and even decades. That’s no small feat. Take care of yourself along the way. Turn back if you need to. But keep finding your way. We promise it’s worth it — even if ONLY to minimize the devastating effects chronic stress can have on the body (note: that linked article, while very thorough, conflates sex and gender).

In the next section, we offer a list of ideas for processing and feeling feelings in no particular order. Not all of them will feel right or available to you. Some may feel great in certain situations and terrible in others. If a strategy feels strange or uncomfortable, that is also information to pay attention to.

Practices for Processing and Accepting Feelings

Some Notes on Externalizing: 

Externalizing is the process of separating one’s sense of self from the feelings, problems, social forces, and relational patterns that influence it. It is also the belief—and its associated worldview—that people are not their problems. What this looks like in practice can take a lot of different forms. You might do this reflection and separation on your own, with a therapist, or in a group.  You might write down the stories in your mind about a situation or problem, and use color-coding or headings to link the stories with their related sources (i.e. “my dad,” “racism,” “transphobia,” “the mean administrator at my school”). You might develop an externalized metaphor or personification for a problem, like “the void”, “the sneaky hate spiral”, “the ferile cat.” Creating this separation between self and problems creates a reflecting space to take a position on the things that are influencing you. 

For those of us in highly individualistic environments (like the United States, which has historically been very influenced by concepts of “rugged individualism”), it can be tough not to solely blame ourselves for our issues. Western medicine and mental healthcare also have a long and unpleasant history of conflating people’s identities with their diagnoses. However, it’s critical that we see the full spectrum of influences, because there are many. It is both a disservice to our healing and a factually inaccurate way of assessing problems when we solely locate them in the individual. (This is also why it’s important that therapists discuss systemic oppression and politics rather than presume they should—or even can—be “values neutral.”)

That said, total separation isn’t really possible, and that’s okay; the point is to create a bit of room in our heads so we can see the issues from a different perspective. We can take a position – maybe we like the influence of the thing we’re evaluating and want more of it. Maybe we want less. Maybe we want to feel it, but don’t want to act out toward others in the ways it invites us to. 

We come into relationship with the force or the problem, and in so doing, stand with a self that is separate from the problem. Externalizing can be an antidote to shame saying “we are bad” when we have done something bad. (This may be tricky for people whose systems of faith and value say that doing, or even thinking, “bad things” automatically means they are bad and full of sin. For people in that situation, more discernment work and evaluation will likely be important to address those challenges. People in this situation may also wish to externalize the views of their faith community and step into conversation with those views in new ways.) 

An important thing to remember here is that externalizing is not a single strategy, it’s a process and a lens. Acknowledging the influence of oppressions, or positioning yourself as separate from your problems is not a thinking experiment to trick yourself into feeling better. Imagine what it might mean to truly believe that people are not their problems. Think of someone you don’t know very well who activates your defenses – what would it mean to your relationship and interactions if you believed that they were also under the influence of problems at times, just the way you are. 

Externalizing is also not a get out of jail free card. Separating yourself from your problems or the societal forces that influence you does not exempt you from responsibility for the things you do while under their influence. For example, while it may be true that toxic masculinity lays the groundwork for sexual violence, the violence itself, and its impact on its targets, remains the responsibility of its perpetrator. However, taking a bit of space and a position on the influence of a problem on our actions could change our response to those influences in the future. For more on issues of accountability and larger social forces, you can explore the Transform Harm Resource Hub. 

Below is a list of specific strategies you can use to process and manage feelings and how to bring them into your day-to-day.

Give It A Name

A perfect example of externalizing is on the show “Big Mouth”—a sitcom revolving around a group of middle-schoolers experiencing puberty and all its ensuing shenanigans. In this show, puberty is not just a set of seemingly random bodily changes, but instead changes that come as a result of Puberty Monsters & Monstresses influencing their lives. These creatures are ones that the teens can see and directly interact with. (At the same time, since teens can only see their own Puberty Monsters, the viewer is invited to hold the possibility that these monsters are actually just personalized manifestations of puberty that exist in their own heads.)

This makes puberty an inherently relational experience—one that the teens can navigate with someone else even in its most private components. For example, the Puberty Monsters & Monstresses give the teens advice (as well as argue with and sometimes even sabotage them), jumpstart physical reactions, provide a sounding board for their worries, and more. 

The teens can also take a position in response to the puberty monster’s suggestions, argue with them, step away from what they are encouraging, or take their advice and jump in. The teens  are autonomous objects, rather than subjects under the influence of external forces, who can reclaim their power, autonomy, and choice, from the forces that seek to influence them.

The technique of giving feelings a name (and even an image) can help us approach them creatively and with enough distance that we can deal with them in a different way than usual. 

Practice: 

  • What would it look like if you could dialogue with your feelings as if they were an embodied, physical presence sitting in front of you? How would interacting with them feel and be different? What kind of questions would you ask? What kind of things would you say? 
  • Pick a feeling you struggle with and give it a name (e.g. jealousy, grief, pettiness, anger, happiness, etc.). Draw it, imagine it, and/or write a description of what it looks like. Consider how long you have known it, when it flares, what it suggests you do or don’t do, when it yells versus when it is silent, what people it tends to get excited around versus the people that make it go away. 
  • Practice having a conversation with the feeling. (While you are doing this you might notice that other feelings or forces hang out in cahoots with this feeling – for now just name those and set them aside (“oh, hi, internalized racism!”). If this felt useful you can go back and repeat these steps with  those too).

Be With The Feeling & Let It Land

In a Wrinkle in Time, Madeleine L’Engle writes:

[Meg] leaned her head against the beast’s chest and realized that the gray body was covered with the softest, most delicate fur imaginable, and the fur had the same beautiful odor as the air. I hope I don’t smell awful to it, she thought. But then she knew with a deep sense of comfort that even if she did smell awful, the beasts would forgive her.

Can we be with emotions this way? No matter how smelly, how distasteful, how unwelcome, just be with them. If they don’t have words for what they are bringing us, if they have only tension, or big angry energy, or silence, or tears, can we be with them?

For most people, that is actually a huge ask. Many of us are taught to suppress emotions, especially ones culturally labeled as “too big”, “unhealthy,” “negative,” “bad,” or “inappropriate.” But suppressing emotions doesn’t make them go away, and indefinitely punting them off to “deal with later” only leaves them room to grow and fester.

Therapist and mindfulness teacher Tara Brach calls the practice of being with the feelings “the turn of acceptance.” Brach guides her students to put a hand to their hearts in moments when challenging feelings arise, and to practice welcoming them. We might say “It’s okay that you’re here.” But maybe it doesn’t feel okay! We might instead say “I notice you.” You can take it a step further and say “And I am willing to listen to what you’re trying to tell me.” We might just tune into the sensations in the body and be silent. The hand to heart gesture may not work for us – we might rather plant our feet on the ground or connect with our belly, hands, or forehead.

No matter how you do it, experiment and find a way that works for you to simply create a welcoming, accepting, or compassionately curious environment for the feeling to land in so you can see what wisdom it has to share with you. Even the most uncomfortable of emotions usually have good insight for us! 

Practice:

  • Watch or listen to “Here Comes a Thought” from the popular TV show “Steven Universe.” How can you integrate this kind of approach into your daily life? For some people, it means they keep a bookmark to this video on their phone to watch whenever they’re overwhelmed, or quietly sing the song to themselves when they’re spiraling in negative thoughts! For others, it means they do the same visualization as in the show: seeing intrusive thoughts or challenging feelings as butterflies (or the flying creature of their choice) than can then slowly float away once noticed. 
  • Practice acknowledging feelings and explicitly naming them (this is where a Feelings Wheel can come in handy to help you identify which ones are present).
  • Try emotion mapping, which gives space to notice emotions without tying them to narrative. You just take a blank paper and draw/shade in the space taken up by each emotion that was in your day. You can color code so that each emotion has a color or spectrum. (Some people like to color their own feelings wheel as their map for this). 

Separate Sensation from Story

From this place of acceptance, or even just curiosity, we might find it useful to notice sensations in our bodies without immediately attaching meaning to them. A crucial part of managing stress, trauma, strong emotions, etc. is about helping our nervous system recalibrate, and to do so, we need to pay attention to what’s even going on in there in the first place! For example, the amygdala—a small structure in the temporal lobe of the brain—is in charge of a couple of things, including detecting environmental threats and kickstarting our survival protocols (commonly known as the “fight/flight/freeze/fawn” responses). When we pay attention to what our bodies are doing and feeling, we can better figure out how to sit with it and what to do about it, including telling the amygdala to chill out.

So, especially when our mind screams urgently, it can be useful to instead slow down and get curious. Is there tightness in the body? Pain? Fluttering in the belly? Shortness of breath? Try to be with what is in this moment. Might this stance bring you more peace, even just for a few minutes?

Peace is this moment without judgment.

That is all. This moment in the Heart-space

where everything that is is welcome.

Peace is this moment without thinking

that it should be some other way,

that you should feel some other thing,

that your life should unfold according to your plans.

–Dorothy Hunt

At the very least, learning to listen here can help attune you for your next steps!

Practice:

  • Explicitly connecting mind and body here can be very useful, but it’s hard to do if you don’t have practice (and especially if you frequently are disconnected from your body and have been trained to ignore its sensations). Sometimes this feels more accessible in less charged moments – maybe an interaction with a coworker rather than a lover, or in a moment where you are activated by your own internal monologue rather than an external stressor. Even something as seemingly mundane as someone getting your order wrong in a coffee shop – can these interactions become opportunities to practice working with emotion?
  • The next time you have a strong emotion, pay attention to what’s going on in your body (e.g. areas of tension and relaxation, heartbeat and pulse, breathing, perspiration, etc.). Do your limbs feel tingly, heavy, twitchy, numb? What’s going on with your stomach? Is there any part of your body that feels an urge to move? What happens if you follow the movement? Is your breathing fast, shallow, slow, deep, measured? Is your jaw clenched and throbbing? Is there a knot in your throat? Does it feel like there are bees in your sternum? 

Check or Challenge the Stories

Maybe you are riding in the car with a partner and having a tense moment around navigation. A storyline might start to form in your mind: “they hate how I have no sense of direction. Why can’t I be better at this? They must be so annoyed with me right now.” You might go further down the road, imagining fights you might have, how long this conflict might last. You may get anxious and quiet, or even preemptively defensive and irritable. Things may escalate and end up in an actual fight with your partner, or in a secret internal fight with yourself that your partner is oblivious to!

It’s very possible you were attuning to your partner’s body language and making an educated guess about their judgment of you. However, sometimes these thought spirals are actually forms of twisted thinking that are a bit more removed from a shared experience. It’s possible you assigned value and meaning to their actions that didn’t match their own, and reacted to your own story rather than a shared reality or even their intentions. So how to differentiate?

Rather than immediately blaming yourself or punting off responsibility to your partner, when your mind returns to the past—or begins to spin more stories about what this all means and churn up anger, self-blame or resentment—what would it be like to interrupt those stories, or even let them go? What might it look like to ask for reassurance, or get external help with those interruptions? What other ways can you engage to check in on the story you’ve built? How would your feelings and behaviors change if the story were different? What past experiences are informing your reactions?

Practice: 

  • Read through a list of common cognitive distortions. Which ones do you find yourself doing frequently? Read through a list of antidotes to those distortions. Which might you be able to try out? Try practicing these first in “lower-stakes” situations and going from there. If you like a daily reminder, there are a number of “mood tracker” apps which can help you spot patterns and distortions in your thinking.
  • Related to this and the previous strategy set, consider what meaning your physical sensations may be trying to communicate (e.g. dehydration, low blood sugar, need for sleep, chemical imbalance of some sort, etc.), and how your emotions may shift if you address your physical body (e.g. decreased irritability, greater focus, heightened ability to manage emotions, etc.). If you want a guided walkthrough of common things to look for and how to address them, http://youfeellikeshit.com/ is an excellent and down-to-earth resource. 

Clarify Attachment Wounds

The way we learn how to process our emotions is partly based on what we see others do around us. This is part of why our experiences with early childhood caregivers is so important (and is a cornerstone of “attachment theory”). As kids, we learn the “rules of emotions.” What feelings are acceptable, what feelings are not, what we’re supposed to LOOK like when we’re having a feeling, and so forth.

We also learn how to have (or not have) conflict, how to address (or not) interpersonal issues, and so on. These things continue to evolve as we grow, and it can be very useful to note what “core attachment wounds” and defensive patterns have emerged as a result. When we know those core wounds that sometimes flare up or lead us to react to present-day people as if they were people from our past, we can better address them both individually and collectively.

For example—one of the authors’ therapy clients loves cats. This person lived a complicated childhood, where responses to her needs were unpredictable. As a result, she experiences a lot of insecurity in her closest relationships as an adult. When her attachment wounds are activated by things like a partner not texting back immediately or her detecting a frustrated tone in their conversation, it is very difficult for her to engage. Instead she might back into a corner, make herself small, take space in solitude, pretend she doesn’t have needs or even lash out if confronted about it. It reminds her of how feral cats react.

So, she and her partner have developed a shared language about her “feral cat” showing up. Because her partner knows her “core wounds,” he does not position himself as her adversary, but rather joins with her to move through the past relational patterns that are currently activated. The “feral cat” language locates the problem outside of her, giving herself a bit of distance from shame and judgment about her actions when triggered. At the same time, her partner knows not to take her actions personally in those moments, to give her space, and to approach her cautiously and with a lot of compassion. Together, they figure out how to care for “the feral cat” and help it feel safe again.

Practice: 

  • When in a conflict with another person, try to join forces to tackle the issue, problem, challenging dynamic rather than each other. Part of doing that is through externalizing and clearly stating how you and your other person are aligning together rather than being adversarial toward each other. Try to name the problem as a specific thing that is external to both of you, or a “part” of you rather than the WHOLE of you (e.g. you and me and My Depression, or you and me joining to address The Anger).
  • Remind yourself that the person in front of you, when you’re activated, is likely bringing up a memory of people from your past. Try to specifically identify who you’re remembering, and recognize/affirm that the person in front of you is NOT that person. (Basically, help your body stop time-traveling and orient to the present moment.) It can help to focus on what makes the two people different, or in the case that you can’t or you’re in fact remembering a past version of this same person (e.g. a partner who cheated 10 years ago but has been faithful since), think of how *you* have grown since then and how you are a different person with new tools now to deal with the situation.

Header image, without changes, used under CC license from https://www.flickr.com/photos/tofu_mugwump/24434222832.

What Kind of “Relationship Suitcase” Packer Are You?

1 Comment

This series is titled “Electrons, Suitcases, and Mixing Boards: New Tools To Get The Relationships You Want.” It’s co-written by Aida Manduley and Anna Stern. This is part 1 of 4.

The Power of Language

Humans are deeply complex creatures. We don’t generally relish being reduced to less than the sum of our parts. Yet the language we have to describe our relationships is full of assumptions and limitations.

We deserve better.

In definitions and labels, we can find community and solidarity, but we can also find arguments and division. We can access resources and care, but we can also be kept out of spaces we need and denied these things. We can name our pain and find pathways to heal it, but we can also swim in a sea that is simultaneously too vast and too small to accurately describe our feelings.

Wherever we go, individual and systemic assumptions about who and what we are shape us. When, how, and whether we get to state the terms that define us—or have terms imposed on us—continually shapes our experience.  The less our identities overlap with society’s assumptions and expectations, the more we probably feel this tension. And we don’t just feel it as individuals —many communities have been stripped of the power to name themselves. Reclaiming this power can be an act of defiance, courage, and survival.

We wrote this series of articles in hopes of providing language and frameworks for people to better craft and negotiate their relationships. Our goal isn’t to offer new words for particular relationship structures, but instead help people figure out the CONTENT of their relationships—the pieces that make them up. This may include things like emotional intimacy, physical touch, sharing hobbies, financial entanglement, and more.

The Relationship Suitcase Analogy

Think of it like this: you are going on a trip. There are two suitcases in front of you. One is empty and you’d have to fill it yourself. You’re not necessarily sure you like the shape or size of it, but it might work out for what you need. The other suitcase is full and you don’t know what’s in it, but the person who packed it said it has “everything you’ll need where you’re going.”

What do you do? Pack the empty suitcase, knowing it will take more time but might have more of what you specifically need? Lug the bulky one, appreciating someone else did the work of figuring out what was needed, but knowing you are likely carrying a lot of things you will not use? Or perhaps you decide to ignore those two suitcases entirely—making a list of what you need for the trip first, and then getting something to carry them in, which may end up not being a suitcase at all.

set of 5 colorful rolling suitcases with backpacks on top of them

Much has been written about what to call the suitcase you are carrying—commitment, friendship, platonic life partnership, polyamory, marriage, non-monogamy, love, the list goes on. In this article, rather than telling you what to call your “relationship suitcase,” we are going to help you get curious and intentional about what you pack inside it, how much of each item you want, and how to discuss that with the other person(s) involved. When figuring out what each trip (read: each relationship) needs, you may realize you:

  1. need the same suitcase for every trip, packed with the same contents in the same amounts always and forever
  2. want to use the same suitcase with the same contents for every trip, but the amount of each thing you pack will shift (e.g. a big bottle of shampoo for a long trip versus a small bottle of shampoo for a short trip)
  3. like the suitcase you were given but want to pack it differently for each trip
  4. prefer an entirely different suitcase or bag for each trip, or have a few sets of suitcases for different “types” of trips
  5. dislike suitcases and just want to use bags and other carrying devices altogether, and figure things out as you go along
  6. don’t like traveling and just want to find a single place to go to and be done moving
  7. get excited at the idea of traveling a lot, and maybe even taking overlapping or nested trips
  8. aren’t sure what you want right now at all, actually
  9. feel like some other combination or style not mentioned above

Wherever you end up, and however this changes or doesn’t across time, the idea is to have options and the skills to support those options. (Part 3 and 4 of this series go into greater depth about the specific tools we’ve developed for this.)

Why We Need New Tools & Frameworks

I am a queer, polyamorous, nonbinary person.

I am a straight, married, cisgender woman.

We might read these sentences and think we know a lot about these two people. But we actually know very little about how they define themselves and their relationships, or what these words mean to them in their specific contexts. We don’t know how many relationships they’re in or what those relationships bring into their lives. We have a valuable starting point, nothing more… and sometimes that’s enough. But when we are trying to build connections with others and see how we can make those mutually fulfilling, we need to go into more detail.

What do our labels look like in practice? How do our labels translate to lived experiences?

If the label “monogamous” comes with the expectation that a monogamous partner be our sole confidante, lover, financial partner, and best friend, we might turn away from other important relationships. We might even think there’s something wrong with us if we can’t find all those things in one person. If we are new to consensual non-monogamy, we may feel pulled to have sex with more partners and/or date more and more people regardless of our capacity to handle it, believing this will prove our identity is “real” or that we’re “doing it right.” The more our relationships are discussed and defined by systems outside of us, the less we may feel empowered to create relationship models that really work for us.

The “Monogamy Expansion Pack”

On the surface, with more and more coverage of non-monogamy in American media (beyond infidelity and swinging), it may seem that we have expanded our understanding of relationship possibilities and that those understandings have spread to the mainstream. When we look deeper, though, many media portrayals of non-monogamy amount to something more like a “monogamy expansion pack.”

photo of a board game on display called MONOGAMY with the subheading "a hot affair...with your partner!" with a red and white vector banner added on top that reads "check out the new expansion pack"
No offense to the actual board game whose photo we used for our sass here.

Polyamory—one flavor of non-monogamy that’s been getting more coverage—in mainstream understanding centers formerly monogamous, typically heterosexual couples. These people have agreed to date outside their monogamous bond—often to “fix a problem” like infidelity or “spice up their marriage.” Reporters look for “polyamorous couples,” with the baked-in assumption of a dyad. When pictured, these folks are generally White, cisgender,  able-bodied, and conventionally attractive. Their relationship is defined in hierarchical terms, centering the previously monogamous “primary” partners, and adding “secondary” or possibly “tertiary” partners to the mix.

Sometimes, for a twist, we’ll see the “couple with a unicorn.” This unit is made up of two women and one man, and the framing often drips with messaging about “greedy bisexuals” or “every man’s fantasy come true.” If the media wants to demonize the arrangement or make them seem odd, they may present a less conventionally attractive set of people or include snide comments from reporters and writers. And sometimes, with a nod to the 60’s and mentions of free love, media will bring up rural communes as a bizarre relic from a different time.

Either way, these portrayals are extremely narrow and don’t usually meaningfully diverge from monogamy’s rules and expectations… there are just a few more people involved in fulfilling the same general scripts.

Challenging the Status Quo

Andrea Zanin critiques these portrayals of polyamory as monogamy with a non-monogamous candy coating, dubbing this “polynormativity.” She writes “the most fundamental element of polyamory—that of rejecting the monogamous standard, and radically rethinking how you understand, make meaning of and practice love, sex, relationships, commitment, communication, and so forth—is lost.” Thus, non-monogamy’s revolutionary potential gets watered down. It’s made into something that challenges the status quo enough to be uncomfortable, but not enough to upend the social order or provide meaningful tension.

So with this in mind, how could our relationships and our social worlds shift if we asked more transformational, liberatory questions? If we had tools to answer with enough specificity to reflect the true parameters of our relationships, the values that shape them (and us), and our individual needs far more clearly?

For more on these questions and their value, stay tuned for Part 2 of this series—where we discuss in greater depth the revolutionary potential of new tools and questions to understand our relationships.

Stop Saying “Poly” When You Mean “Polyamorous”

30 Comments

Please read the full article before commenting. This post is primarily meant to explore the confused, defensive, and sometimes outright racist/sexist/etc. reactions to a call-to-action around language use in the polyamorous community. The specific linguistic issue is concretely addressed in the final section.

Doesn’t it suck when someone tells you to stop using a word you’ve been using for years because they say it’s oppressive or harmful to their community?

Do you feel personally angry and/or persecuted when a term you use suddenly comes under attack? Do you think “this is political correctness run amok“?

That’s how a bunch of polyamorous folks felt when they were asked to stop using “poly” as an abbreviation. In case you haven’t stumbled upon this (I just heard about it two days ago myself),  here’s the scoop—a Polynesian person on Tumblr made the following call to action:

Hey, can any polyamory blogs with a follower count please inform the palagi portion of the community that “poly” is a Polynesian community identifier, and is important to our safe spaces.
Using “polyamory” is cool just like using “polygender” and “Polyromantic” and or Polysexual” is cool. But the abbreviation “poly” is already in use.

Then, when people pushed back saying “chill out, lots of words have multiple meanings” or “people have been using poly as an abbreviation for polyamorous for decades already,” they responded with this. [ETA 12/26/18: The original link has been deleted but there are some archived adjacent posts if you search the above quoted text. Long story short, the person was upset, talked about what people should do moving forward, discussed their thoughts around the word’s exclusivity and meaning, and more.]

Now, do I agree 100% with their statements? Nah. And regardless of my post’s title, I don’t actually want to obliterate “poly” from your vocabulary. But before you breathe that big ol’ sigh of relief, keep reading.

Poly: Polynesian, Polyamorous, Polywrath?

People are now discussing this debate on various Facebook groups dedicated to sexuality education and polyamory (one of the biggest has over 18K members), on Reddit  (as well as the cesspools of Reddit) and on Tumblr. It’s apparently been brewing for a few months, if not longer, and some people are PISSED. Those under the delusion that polyamorous people are all kinder and more open-minded than the general population clearly hasn’t been in one of these circles and looked at it through a social equity lens.  But that’s a post for another day. Back to the anger.

See what I did there? You're welcome.

See what I did there? You’re welcome.

Being on the receiving end of “stop using a word” or “you’re being oppressive” isn’t an easy pill to swallow. Whenever I get called out for something—most likely ableism since it’s an axis of oppression I don’t personally experience and am still learning a lot about—there’s often a knee-jerk reaction in there. A “don’t tell me what to do” demon on my shoulder who loves getting self-righteous and hates being wrong, whose first line of defense is “it’s not even that big of a deal.” Heck, I’ve definitely felt it as a sexuality educator when I’ve merely read up on newer sexuality labels and no one is even talking to me. Though most of the time the reaction is “COOL, NEW WORDS,” I’d be lying if I said I never think “this is just going TOO FAR” or “WHY SO MANY LABELS” when hearing some new categories of identity, especially if people are getting defensive about them. That gut reaction is normal…

But then I take a breath and realize I’m being ridiculous even if it’s normal.

I’m not being my best self in those moments, and I need to hold compassion for my own feelings but also push past them if they’re not serving my values of kindness and justice.

Overall, individuals and communities are perpetually trying to find ways to describe themselves and their lives, and that can be really tough especially if the words are related to identities that are devalued and marginalized. While “labels are for soup-cans” and we’re so much more complex than words could ever describe, language is a powerful thing that helps both reflect and create our world. It helps build communities, express our emotions, and even pass down our histories. It helps us name our struggles, craft banners for solidarity, and connect for change. It makes sense people have a lot of feelings about it!

Language is ever-evolving and it’s a beautiful thing when more words can become available, when more ways of understanding our world are accessible. But that doesn’t happen without friction. Sometimes our knee-jerk reactions to new words or identities come from a place of holding onto what we’ve been taught and being uncomfortable with change. Sometimes the new labels contradict, criticize, or make obsolete other labels we’ve been using—or even identifying with—and that can feel like a punch in the gut.

WAYSA

Art by Amanda Watkins, my other boo. Click on the image to check out more of her art!

Often, and as I recognize is the case with me and my pride,  immediate rage comes from not wanting to think that we’ve been ignorant and/or messing something up THIS WHOLE TIME. If XYZ person is right that usage of a particular word is oppressive, then what does that say about me, who has been using it for years? Does that mean I’m an oppressive, irredeemable jerk? (The answer is often “no, it just means stop using it” but the visceral reality doesn’t allow us to understand that quickly.) For more on this phenomenon, check out this video by Ian Danskin [one of my partners] and his overall series “Why Are You So Angry?“

Point is we need to evolve with language and work through our gut reactions to change.

Now, that’s not to say we should forget about the roots of certain words or suddenly say that terms like the n-word and the r-word are chill because “we’re past them being a slur” [hint: we’re not, and racism/ableism aren’t over either]. What I mean is that we need to hold space for growth and be willing to move in new directions with our terminology—that regardless of how defensive our initial “Don’t Tell Me What To Do” shoulder-demons might be, we MUST move in a direction of empathy and kindness, particularly to those in marginalized communities with long legacies of experiencing colonialism and other forms of structural oppression.

“But Poly Is a Latin Prefix; You CAn’t Claim It…”

Yes, poly is a prefix for dozens of words and it actually comes from Greek. Even the “poly” in the naming of Polynesia came out of super uninventive naming schemas (Polynesia means “many islands”). So? No one is saying the prefix needs to be eradicated. When talking about polycarbonate lenses, polygraphs, polygons, or polydactyl kittens, they’re not being referred to as “poly[s]” on their own. There’s the qualifier afterwards, but that is not always the case when talking about people. If someone states “I’m poly” you can’t immediately tell if they’re saying they’re Polynesian, polyamorous, polysexual, polyromantic, polygendered, or a host of other identity labels [without further context]. Heck, they could be a FEW of those labels.

So what we’re talking about here is clarity as well as empathy and willingness to listen.

Whether these Tumblr folks represent a few dozen, a few hundred, or a few thousand, the questions remain the same: what are we, non-Polynesian “poly” people and our allies, going to do to provide clarity to our language and stand in solidarity with however many Polynesians want this change? More importantly, what does this situation, and the pushback from members of “the polyamorous community,” tell us about language adoption and resistance to change in our communities?

When people say this is “being politically correct,” they are trying to make basic decency into a politically contested issue and make it sound bad. Some people even think they’re brave if they’re politically incorrect, conflating deep-rooted anti-authoritarian work that seeks to dismantle structural power with, like, flipping the bird to someone on Tumblr talking about racism. Being a jerk and using oppressive terminology isn’t brave. Whining about trigger-warnings and “preferred pronouns” and “social justice warriors ruining fun” isn’t bold or radical. Saying we’re “coddling our new generations” and actually harming survivors of trauma by being more thoughtful is missing the point (and it’s not even medically accurate). Being unwilling to even consider a minor shift in language to give space for another community to flourish is not living in a space of goodwill.

So What Should We Be Doing?

As someone in the sexuality field AND a polyamorous person with a big tech geek streak, I value useful search terms and disambiguation. Heck, as a super Type A person that drools over nice spreadsheets, regardless of other sexual or racial identities, I think it’s crucial that we make the Internet an easier, more organized place to browse. I already avoided using “poly” online in any meaningful capacity  because it felt too ambiguous for searches and helpful tagging, and this debate is just another great reason to avoid it: because it’s a term that a racially marginalized community uses to self-identify and build community. If “poly” on its own works for them, more power to ’em. Even in sexuality-specific circles, using “poly” can be possibly misunderstood because there are other labels that start with poly- as well, so again, not the most useful.

Some have suggested “polya” or “polyam” as possible abbreviations that don’t conflict with usage by other groups. Personally, I think “polya” looks ugly as a word and makes me think of Dubya [never a good thing]. I feel “meh” about “polyam” but could see it as a better alternative, I guess. To each their own, and I won’t be adopting either of these abbreviations soon, but what I do advocate for is mindfulness around when and where we use “poly” to mean “polyamorous.” [ETA 11/26/19: I’ve grown fonder of “polyam” and while I still generally just use the full word, it’s the abbreviation I work with these days.]

Here are some questions to ask ourselves:

  1. Is the word being used in a space where the meaning is clear to everyone witnessing the content?
  2. Is using “poly” for “polyamorous” making it harder for another community to disambiguate and find “their own kind”?
  3. What impact does the term’s usage have on search results, tagging systems, and online spaces?
  4. Is the decision to keep using “poly” for “polyamorous” coming from a place of spite and thoughtlessness or from a place of informed compassion?

Personally, I will continue to use “poly” in private situations or verbal conversation where people know what I mean, BUT in tagging things online—a place where categorizing information is important, where people use those systems to search for others like themselves, and so on—I will use polyamory specifically and avoid “poly.” Again, this is work I was already doing, but something that is generally not a huge effort for folks to start doing if they hadn’t been. I encourage this level of specificity in others, for the sake of more than just random Polynesian folks on Tumblr.

But in regards to those “random Polynesian folks” on Tumblr, it doesn’t matter if most of us “don’t think about Polynesian people when we say poly” or that “our Polynesian friends don’t care.” While that may inform how radical our changes are and where we enact change, it shouldn’t mean that we ignore the issue entirely or dig our heels in the dirt because we don’t want to change. To questions of “couldn’t they just as easily pick a new tag/abbreviation?” my answer is just “maybe.” But when it’s a horde of predominantly White, Western polyamorists asking that question and refusing to consider where they may change, that says something.

At the end of the day, these are people asking for us to collaborate in making the Internet and its communities easier and better to navigate for all.

If you live in a place where you are guaranteed free speech, calls for space and respect like this aren’t censorship—they’re calls for consideration. You still have the power and right to make whatever decision feels best for you, but my hope is that you will prioritize the expansion of kindness and reduction of harm in the process.

One of my favorite poly-related words. This image by Robert Ashworth used under Creative Commons license. Click through for original.

Header image of Moorea in Polynesia shot by Loïs Lagarde and used under Creative Commons license. The only change to the image is that it’s cropped a bit differently.

Update 09/04/15: Poly as a prefix actually comes from Greek, not Latin as I originally wrote. Made the correction. I always get those mixed up because they’re both present in the full word [polyamory]. Thanks for the person that caught that!

Update 09/05/15: Unsurprisingly, I’ve heard from Polynesian folks on both sides of the issue. Some use “poly” while others don’t. Some think it’s useful while others don’t. Some use the ‘net regularly while others don’t. Interestingly, the “poly-as-Polynesian” definition got added to Urban Dictionary back in ’06. Anyway. I clarified a bit of language in the post, most notably in a sentence that could be interpreted in two ways and most people were reading it differently than I intended it [the one about calling something “‘poly,’ period”].

Orgasm Justice: Are You Entitled To Climax?

1 Comment

Header image source: Getty Images / Mic

If you’re a woman and listen to Nicki Minaj and Amy Schumer, sounds like you should be! But is there more to the story? Read on to find out. My colleague Rachel Kramer Bussel wrote a piece on orgasmic parity and interviewed me for it, where she explained the impetus for the article:

Recently, both Nicki Minaj and Amy Schumer have come out swinging for “orgasm equality”—namely, that when a woman has sex, especially with a man, she is entitled to an orgasm. Minaj declared in Cosmopolitan’s July issue, “I demand that I climax. I think women should demand that.” Schumer told Glamour in the August 2015 issue, “Don’t not have an orgasm. Make sure he knows that you’re entitled to an orgasm.”

It’s a great article that raises many valuable points, including how some people use orgasm as a bargaining chip or power-play tool, and I’m so glad I was able to contribute to it. Alas, as often happens,  I had way more to say than could fit in someone else’s article, and so here’s an expansion on my thoughts, beyond what got used.

Orgasms: What Do The Numbers Say?

orgasm gap

Jessica Valenti, in an article defending “orgasm equality” and Nicki’s words, gave us the scoop:

According to the Kinsey Institute, while 85% of men believe that their partners had an orgasm during their last sexual experience, only 64% of women report actually having one. And the Cosmopolitan’s Female Orgasm Survey this year shows that only 57% of women climax regularly with a partner. Those numbers change a bit depending on who women are having sex with though – a 2014 study in the Journal of Sexual Medicine showed that lesbians had a nearly 75% orgasm rate.

Men across the sexuality spectrum, however, all reported around an 85% orgasm rate, and another study shows that 75% of men report always having an orgasm during sex. Every. Single. Time.

Nicki And Amy’s Rx For Orgasm: Too Prescriptive?

I bristle at most definitive statements about how people should exist in the world. Whenever I hear “always” or “never,” it sends up red flags in my brain because those words usually erase a lot of nuance and variability of human experience, and often go hand in hand with oppressive ideas. I can’t help but eye-roll when people, especially professionals and/or media darlings who have big platforms, use prescriptive language about how people should be having sex  or perpetuate the assumption that everyone WANTS to be having sex in the first place. Still: that doesn’t mean Minaj or Schumer’s comments are entirely off the mark or unimportant.

I believe that Nicki Minaj is speaking from a place of seeing societal orgasm disparities and trying to resolve them in her own life, then, at its core, giving advice to others to not put up with inconsiderate partners [particularly men] who demand orgasm but do not reciprocate. That’s the key message I think people should take away from her comments. I see her speaking from a place of empowering women, even if she isn’t doing it in the most nuanced or inclusive way, and suspect that’s also because she wasn’t giving a manifesto on the matter, but instead briefly commenting on it. The people criticizing her for being “demanding” or “not caring about the man’s feelings” are missing the point AND also contributing to harshly judging the words of women of color, and especially Black women, who are already culturally presented as “loud and angry” for even existing.

Honestly, I care less about if Nicki self-identifies as a feminist or somehow embodies “perfect feminism” for all [coughrespectabilitypoliticscough] and more about what she says and does, and what we can learn from her that supports our personal visions of feminism—and there is a LOT there to work with. As scholars, educators, sexuality professionals,  activists, whatever: our work shouldn’t be to undercut Minaj, but instead further nuance her statements and get at their roots rather than a superficial understanding, especially if we want to reach the people she’s talking to.

Similarly, Schumer speaks about body positivity, being deserving of love regardless of size, introducing partners to the marvels of the human clitoris, and not letting dudes get away with just ignoring her pleasure. But her entitlement isn’t exactly the same as Nicki’s stance that women demand orgasms, and Schumer’s feminism often lacks a critical race analysis  that Minaj consistently brings to the table. In fact, Schumer has shoved her foot deep in her mouth around racial matters various times and excused some of her actions by holding steadfast to her “feminist” label. Is Nicki perfect? Of course not. But as far as I know she’s not pretending that her feminist cred exempts her from messing up.

amy-schumer-race

Entitlement: Revolutionary, Oppressive, Or Both?

The idea of ensuring women’s pleasure without an underhanded agenda is a radical idea, period. Even the heading for the Cosmo article where Nicki was interviewed—that calls her demands for orgasm “high maintenance”—shows why such demands can be revolutionary in a society that teaches women to be servile; the idea of women putting their pleasure at the forefront and on equal footing to men’s is seen as “too much.”

Especially for women of color, and particularly Black women, that message is key in a society that also exploits our sexuality and makes us objects much more than subjects. Heck, this also connects to age and ensuring that sexually active young women learn how to achieve or at least communicate about orgasms from early on instead of wasting precious years of sexual encounters being too timid, uneducated, unempowered, or whatever to navigate those waters. [That said, I’m not saying it’s young women’s fault that society does a terrible job with sex education or empowering us.]

From a feminist standpoint, demanding orgasms makes sense. “We’re here, we’re horny, and we want to come!” But which women are doing the demanding and which women are prevented from doing so?

In a White supremacist society that hypersexualizes women of color and gives more overall bargaining power to White women regardless of how sexual they are assumed to be, Schumer’s call to be entitled comes from both her body-positive feminism as well as her Whiteness. For both Nicki and Amy, this also intersects with their able-bodied-ness. For women with physical disabilities, who are often desexualized entirely or fetishized by select groups of the population, being entitled to climax with partners intersects with a host of other issues, including mobility concerns and worries about not being able to even enter a partner’s house if it’s not accessible. [Check out the work of Robin Wilson-Beattie with SexAbled, Bethany Stevens with Crip Confessions, and Shanna K. (as well as her peer-reviewed papers) if you’re curious about that!] For Millenials [shout out to my generation!] who are already billed as “spoiled brats” or “lazy and entitled” people who “haven’t paid their dues yet,” demanding better sexual encounters also operates at an interesting crossroads of identities, including age.

So while there can certainly be strength in entitlement, as well as the ensuing action when things aren’t up to snuff, we must not ignore the structural barriers to being able to demand orgasms and the reasons why some people find it waaaaaaay easier to be entitled than others. In short: if we truly want life, liberty, and orgasms for all [who want them], we need to do a lot of social justice work, not just generic sex ed and feminist action.

Is Orgasm Equality Where It’s At?

As was mentioned by other sexuality professionals in the Bussel article, people’s understandings vary in regards to how orgasms happen in the first place, who is responsible for whose orgasms, the value of orgasms vs. the overall sexual journey, and if one can ever truly “give” someone an orgasm or if a better word is “facilitate.” Because of that variability, I don’t really care to focus on the “should you be entitled?” question once I have your attention. I’ll even let you in on a little secret: I actually don’t believe in orgasm equality. I think it misses the mark.

What do I advocate for instead? I believe in striving for pleasure equity and orgasm justice: pleasure, including but not limited to orgasms, for those who want them in the amounts they desire. It’s about giving people autonomy to figure out what they want from sex, the space to communicate it, and the resources to work toward it, not forcing people to have sex to fit someone else’s standards. It’s not about EQUALITY, which means SAMENESS; it’s about FAIRNESS. This graphic that has made the rounds in activist circles explains it perfectly:

equity-vs-equality

During sex, if orgasms are desired, I see them as the product of collaborative effort unless negotiated otherwise. I believe in sexy times where the goals are negotiated among its participants, whether that’s one or twenty one. Is the goal overall pleasure? Is the goal orgasm specifically? Is the goal stress-reduction before a big event, building intimacy, making a baby, making money, something else? Whatever it is, it can’t just be unilaterally decided.  Each person should measure their sexual satisfaction based on their reasons for having sex in any given instance, and goals can be multi-faceted and complex.

Reproductive Health and Teenage Pregnancy: Tips for Providers

Leave a comment

Curious about updates to standards around contraception, reproductive health and teenage pregnancy care, and safer sex for adolescents? Here are my livetweeted notes + some slides from a webinar overviewing key evidence-based practices which streamline reproductive health and teenage pregnancy services for adolescents. The webinar also gave data on what teens need and what kind of behaviors they’re engaging in. Though aimed at medical providers, I think the session produced nuggets of information for all kinds of folks!

The Time is Now:
Adolescent Friendly Reproductive Health Care Webinar

Speakers:

Erica Gibson, M.D., & Judy Lipshutz, MSW, RN, NYPATH
Heilbrunn Dept. of Population & Family Health, Columbia University

Topics that were covered include:

Quick Start Contraceptive Initiation
Emergency Contraception
Pregnancy Testing
Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptives (LARCS)
Expedited Partner Therapy (EPT)
STI Treatment

Did you know?

  • In 2013, the Youth Risk Behavior Survey said that over 60% of HS students reported using a condom at their last sexual encounter.
  • The average sexually active teen waits 14 months before seeking reproductive/sexual health services, and the catalyst is usually the desire for a pregnancy test.
  • The types of emergency contraception  in the U.S. include Levonorgestrel pills (e.g. Plan B), the copper IUD (e.g. ParaGard), & ulipristal acetate pills (e.g. ella).
  • In July 2014, the The European Medicines Association issued the following statement: “emergency contraceptives can continue to be used to prevent unintended pregnancy in women of any weight or body mass index (BMI). The available data are limited and not robust enough to support with certainty the conclusion of decreased contraceptive effect with increased body weight /BMI.”

 

50 Shades of WTF: A Livetweeting Experience (Book 1 of Fifty Shades of Grey Trilogy)

3 Comments

Love it or hate it, the ridiculously popular Fifty Shades trilogy has spread like wildfire so it’s crucial that we take a closer look at what this story is actually about. (I know I’m about a million years late in writing about this, but with the movies coming out, it finally felt like the right time.) Take the plunge with me and look forward to word-counts, memes, alternate universe versions of the story, and actual tips. Read my Storify [here]. This is just one piece in a larger series of posts I’m writing as a lead-up to Valentine’s day, so get ready for more!

50 shades doge

My 7th Grade Class Helped Me Define My Relationships

Leave a comment

I remember learning about elements and electron-shell diagrams in my 7th grade science class. Who would’ve thought that that same model I saw on the whiteboard would be the key to explaining what the heck I was doing with my relationships years later?

Please scroll to the bottom for a 2016 update/note!

Fluorine has 2 electrons on
the first shell and 7 on the
second shell.

Unless you count a torrid online romance with a guy from Canada when I was 14, at the age of 19 I’d never been in a relationship. All my knowledge of the mechanics of sex and intimacy were purely theoretical, and then I suddenly launched into something with a married polyamorous man with a Ph.D who was almost 10 years my senior. Oh, and did I mention he also had another girlfriend in addition to his wife? Though precocious and definitely interested in alternative sexuality since before high-school, nothing had prepared me for this relationship model.

So I did what any self-respecting nerd would do: I researched! I devoured everything I could find online about non-monogamy (and polyamory especially), spending hours upon hours reading personal accounts, advice columns, informational websites, and research papers. I had to unlearn a lot of things and reprogram my brain to understand this new model of relationship. In that process, I had to interrogate the metaphors I used to describe my love-life, what visual representations I used to talk about significant others, and what kind of language in general I used to describe my intimacy and the people involved.

Enter: SCIENCE!

If “Lithium” actually just meant
“Aida,” this diagram would say that
I have 2 primaries and 1 secondary!

With increased hands-on experience (wink wink, nudge nudge) in non-monogamous living came more “opportunities” to describe my situation, both to potential partners and the general public.

One of the hurdles in explaining my relationship configuration was discussing how I could have two super important partners at the same time. I’m a pretty visual person, and non-monogamy sometimes necessitates a lot of diagramming, so I needed something I could draw for people. At some point along the way, my brain cycled back to my 7th grade science class and the electron-shell diagrams seemed to resonate.

So how does this work for me (and how might it work for you)? Read on, look at the Lithium diagram to the right, and keep the following in mind:

  • The big, red circle is the nucleus (made up of protons and neutrons), and that is the self (me!)
  • The little gray circles are electrons, and those are other people
  • The shells/rings are levels of commitment/closeness

1: There can be more than one electron/person on each shell (which goes against the ideas of “only one soulmate” in the monogamy model and against the “only one primary” notion in some polyamorous communities). The electrons don’t occupy the same exact space on the shell (read: the electrons are not on top of each other, ), but they ARE on the same shell, so it embodies how multiple primary partners are on the same general level of importance but are still fulfilling in different aspects.

2: Up to a certain point, the further a shell is from the nucleus, the higher the maximum number of electrons allowed on it. (For example: the first shell can hold a max. of 2 electrons, the second shell can hold a max. of 8, and the third shell can hold a max. of 18.) In relationship-talk, that means that I have a maximum number of people that I can pay attention to at a given time on a given rung, and I could have bigger numbers of lower-investment relationships than higher-investment relationships*. The maximum of two on the innermost shell is also probably accurate; I don’t think I could ever handle more than 2 primaries!

3 (not tied to the shell diagram, but just general atomic knowledge I wanted to include): While the electrons affect the charge of an atom, an element is identified by the number of protons in the nucleus. This jives well with the idea that while relationships might change me (and, heh, make me more positive or negative), I’m my own person and I have a recognizable identity outside of whomever I am partners with at a particular time.

4: Finally, just because a shell has a maximum number of electron spots available, it doesn’t mean  I HAVE to try to get that shell full of electrons or that bed full of people just because I can.

*Still, the model isn’t perfect. Number of partners on each “commitment rung” don’t have to follow the “filling” patterns of atoms. For example, in Real Science, each shell can only hold a particular maximum number of electrons (2, 8, 18, 32 for the first four shells) and shells get filled from the inside out, so I wouldn’t have an element/relationship with 2 electrons/people on the first shell, 4 in the second, and then 9 in the third. In my love life, however, I could totally have 5 casual partners and no primary, or perhaps I could have 2 primaries, 1 secondary, and 12 tertiaries. And actually, according to the Madelung Energy Ordering Rule, there are certain atoms who have “partially-filled” outer rings, so straying from the 2, 8, 18, 32 pattern is possible, but not the rule by any means.

07/30/16 — Edited to add: How I personally arrange my relationships and what words I use for them has changed considerably throughout the years! It’s important to clarify that the way I describe relationship arrangements here follows (or can follow) a fairly hierarchical model (though different from the “only one primary” idea, and without the problematic “only primaries matter” mentality). This electron shell model is useful for some but certainly not exhaustive, and there are tons of layers of nuance we can/should layer on top of it. This shell model can help with broad explanations and debunking some common misconceptions, but it doesn’t say anything about kinds of commitment, what names and partnerships in these “relationship rungs” look like, or anything like that. Intimacy and commitment are rarely so easily categorizable, so please keep that in mind when perusing. For some food for thought on polyamory, hierarchy, and more, check this and this out.

Polyamory: When One Spouse Isn’t Enough

Leave a comment

^ That title irks me. It’s also the title for THIS article on ABC News Health online. The article itself isn’t that bad (though not very well-written), or maybe I’m just not indignant enough, but the sensationalist and warped title rubs me the wrong way because it gives off negative connotations of spousal inadequacy and dysfunctional relationships. Furthermore, the caption on their illustration is “Some who live in clusters with multiple sex partners say legalzing marriage for polyamorous partners is the next civil rights movement.” The article says something entirely different, yet the title and caption point to the same shit everyone thinks about non-monogamy in general–it’s all about sex. Not that I think sex is bad or that people should’t have casual/recreational sex, but that reducing things that aren’t just about sex to sex is wrong.

One of the things that annoys me about the portrayal of “alternative lifestyles” in the media is that they tokenize people who participate in them, and, furthermore, make everything in their lives SOMEHOW related to that aspect of their identity/life. If a poly person eats an apple, it’s because they’re poly, NOT because they just so happen to love apples. If a queer person commits a crime, it’s all traceable solely to their sexual/gender identity, NOT something else. The “unmarkedness” of certain identities is so infuriating. The “default” human in the U.S. is white, male, heterosexual, and monogamous (or supposed to be), and anything that deviates from that is seen as “a factor”(or THE factor) in any equation. If a white man kills 20 people, it’s because he was crazy or something; no one ever brings in race/ethnicity, culture, sexuality, or whatever else into the picture. Similarly, if a poly relationships dissolves, people blame it on the poly aspect, when there is SO much more that could have gone wrong. No one generally blames monogamy when a marriage falls apart, so why should poly be any different?

There’s so much pressure to be “perfect” and conform to the cookie-cutter image; people are put under constant scrutiny. Same with queers–radical queers “make us look bad” and we constantly have to try and please the majority and be “the model queers” so we’ll get basic civil rights and some respect. It’s so sad and unfair. It’s like women having to work harder than men to get the same wages–all these “minority” groups having to become “model minorities” and assimilate in order to do anything. Guh. It’s so upsetting that the only way to seemingly advance queer rights is to be as heteronormative as possible. “See? We’re JUST LIKE YOU! TOTALLY! LOVE US BECAUSE WE’RE LIKE YOU! (not because we’re, y’know, human or anything)”

My Boyfriend’s Girlfriend Isn’t Me

Leave a comment

This song is adorable and hilarious! It could be an interesting way to introduce friends and family to the notion of polyamory. I mean, not have this be their ONLY introduction, but an aid. It’s a cute way to show how complex polyamory can be. And speaking of non-monogamy…I obviously can’t speak for the person I’ll be in 20 or 30 years, but…for NOW…I definitely see myself embracing polyamory, or at the very least ethical non-monogamy of some flavor, for the long run. So regardless of what type of relationships I have NOW, be they polyamorous or monogamous, I do believe that I’ll end up as non-monogamous. Sorry, abuela! 🙂

[4/12/18: Edited to expand instances of “poly” to “polyamorous” and “mono” to “monogamous.]

“My Boyfriend’s Girlfriend” by Must Be Tuesday

There’s lots of kinds of people in this world
and I’m, well, I’m not like other girls
How do I explain this properly?
My boyfriend’s girlfriend isn’t me.

Well obviously one of them is…
But there’s another girl of his
And I know her and she knows me
and that would be great if it was just us three.

But she has a guy who’s even more pretty
and a long-distance thing in another city
He and his wife come by when they can
and they have a kid who calls me his aunt.

Just when I thought it was all too crazy
I tried to draw our family tree.
There’s nothing wrong with extra love
But the paper wasn’t big enough.

Chorus: 
Of all the ways I’ve ever dated
it’s never been so complicated
The chain can extend to eternity
’cause my boyfriend’s girlfriend isn’t me.

We spent Christmas eve with my boyfriend’s dad
Christmas day with my folks and the feast they had
New Years, he went to his girlfriend’s city
I mean the one who isn’t me.

She brought him and her other guy
to her company picnic and I won’t lie
I wasn’t used to being alone
so I want someone new of my own.

It isn’t easy to find a fling
‘Cause when you hit on some tasty thing
They say “Aren’t you with that guy?”
You say “Oh he doesn’t mind.

Have you ever seen ‘Big Love’?
Know what I mean, wink, wink, nudge, nudge…”
And they say “Oh, so you’re a Mormon?”
“No! …I’ll explain from the beginning…”

Chorus

When the partners get together,
the primaries and all the others,
we give the newbies a little primer
and we all get out our day timers.

Calendars as far as the eye can see.
“When can I see you?” “When are you free?”
“Who gets me on my birthday?” and then
“Does anyone have an extra pen?”

The kids have the best celebration.
Gifts from three dozen odd relations.
There’s Uncle Jackie’s girlfriend, Mary,
Ed who is her secondary…

Ed’s new boyfriend brought along
his ex, whose fling is going strong
with someone that I used to know
and just became my boyfriend’s beau…

Chorus

A couch where four can snuggle up
Suddenly isn’t big enough
And even so we don’t give up.
There’s no such thing as too much love.