"Let's Stay Friends"

That's what we always say, right? Let's stay friends. I don't love you anymore, I can't be with you, I want someone else...  but let's stay friends. A noble sentiment, but I think it's a cop-out. How do you stay friends with someone when you aren't even friends to begin with? Most often the dynamic for a romantic sexual relationship is present from very soon after meeting someone, flavouring whatever friendship we are attempting to build in our endeavours to get into the other person's pants and heart. There is no non-romantic friendship under it, on which to stand when trying to "stay friends" after breaking up. So why do we try? Is it just a placebo, a way of trying to avoid the pain of ending it completely? Or an emotionally masochistic desire to drag it out? How do we do it and what does it look like? 

So often it seems the dynamics of the former relationship just flow over into the "friendship" yet we have to try to sort them out within a different context. How friendly is too friendly, can I kiss someone in front of this "friend", what is and isn't okay to talk about? We have no workshops or books or community supports for transitioning from lovers to friends. Yet there is an expectation that ex-lovers will stay friends, especially in smaller alternative communities. We are expected to somehow magically transcend all of the heart-break and anger and just "be friends" with each other. Or to engage in the alternative, which is to rally our friends around us and vilify the ex. I don't see either option as acceptable. Yes, there are of course exceptions, some people do just transition very easily from lovers to friends, and some relationships are so toxic or abusive that rallying and ostracizing is necessary. It's not the exceptions that I am referring to, it's the common scenario of Jane and Jill were madly in love and have now split up. There is of course anger and hurt, but in general both are great people and cared about within community. Of course nobody wants to have to choose between them. And of course nobody should have to. But does this really mean that they have to "stay friends"? It's my opinion that space is needed after a break-up, space to heal, time to get over it, and to not have the person's "moving on" or "not moving on yet but distracting themself" in your face. Sometimes time is needed to rant and rage about each other. That's not wrong. Being angry is not equivalent to hating or wishing ill. Speaking rage and hurt is not casting an evil spell. And wanting to stay away from someone over whom a person is hurting does not have to be divisive to a community. 

I don't see how denying one's self the time and space needed to heal is a better or more mature option. Actually I would argue that if it hurts too much to see the other person, or if there is still too much turmoil and confusion, then avoiding each other is the healthier option. 

We don't need to "stay friends" when we break up. We don't need to "play nice" and get along with each other. We are allowed to rant and rage and trash talk...  just keep it in context, find folks who can take it for what it is and contain it rather than hold it as a judgment on either party. As community, we can support each other in taking the space we need. We can hold the hurt, let the rage and acting out happen, and keep loving each person. We can stand in compassion for each other. 

'Cause really, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter who does and doesn't break up, who we did and didn't become romantically or sexually involved with, or who we were and weren't able to "stay friends" with after the fact. What matters is that we remember, regardless of what kind of stupid shit we've pulled on each other, that we're still stuck with each other. Especially in smaller alternative communities. And while it might feel really great in the moment to hear from our friends that they've got our backs, we need to remember that our friends may have our exes' backs too... and that's okay. That's how it needs to be. Like it or not, like each other or not, we are what we've got. We are our allies. And maybe that's part of what we're trying to say when we use the words "let's stay friends". Maybe what we mean is more like "I'll still look out for you." or "if some homophobe jumps you, or anyone tries to deliberately hurt you, I'll stand up for you". Maybe we don't want to lose an ally. Maybe we don't want to lose a member of our family. Maybe it's time we learn to rework our use of language and say to each other "let's stay allies". 

Love, laughter, and Blessings.

Nibiru

Here's the thing. I can't say for sure that there aren't lizard aliens living on the planet Nibiru, just waiting for their orbit to bring them close to Earth again so they can attempt to resume their ancient reign over humankind...  and really I don't care. If it floats your boat then believe it, preach it, prepare for it. But DO NOT trick me into attending a conversion attempt on your part. 'Cause really, inviting folks to come listen to one thing, then preaching for two hours about your religion, is just bs. Fire and brimstone, Nibiru and Anunnaki...  same shit different pile...  believe what I say or you will suffer. Good grief. If there actually are aliens coming, having people running around talking crazy is only going to serve the purpose of feeding disbelief. I mean seriously...  grasping at straws here...  pine cone images are symbolic of the pineal gland, which will be opened up suddenly when they arrive, so that we will all have telepathic powers...  okay... 

See I like out-there ideas. I'll entertain the notion of lizard people..  'cause I really don't know. It's the preaching and zealotry that loses me...  it's the false pretense under which the audience was gathered that annoyed me. And it was the pine cones that pushed it over the edge. 

Pretending for a moment that everything presented yesterday is true, how does using the thought control techniques of the ruling lizard class do anything to help prepare humankind for the future being laid before us? My suggestion, teach people to think for themselves, to develop critical and skeptical thinking, and to be able to flow with whatever is in the future. 'Cause whether or not there are lizard aliens, the reality is that we are screwed...  we do have an elite ruling class, the rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer, and we are on the verge of distopia. Learning to think rather than being spoon-fed by television and internet can only lead to good things, whether or not there are Anunnaki looming on the horizon. And hey, if that's the myth it takes for people to step out of zombie-hood, then so be it.

P is for Polyamoury

C is for cookie. B is for boobie. P is for polyamoury. What does polyamoury mean anyway? We have Wikipedia's succinct definition of "Polyamory is the practice, desire, or acceptance of having more than one intimate relationship at a time with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved" which I greatly appreciate. I'm also somewhat interested in etymology though so, once I get past the mixing of Greek and Latin (which I hadn't even noticed until a certain friend pointed it out to me - thanks!) then I start thinking about the concept of poly as many and amor (amour) as love... many loves. This leads me to wonder about our choices in how we define loves. When advocating for the legalization - or at least decriminalization - of polyamourous relationships, we are fighting for the right to have more than one romantic relationship at a time. It's all very much about sex, and how many people it is okay to be sexually involved with during any particular moment in a person's life. This to me is indicative of our obsession with sex and our perception of sexual intimacy as being the ultimate form of intimacy, so much so that there is a balking at the thought of someone sharing that type of intimacy with more than one person. I'm sure we're all familiar with the idea that one cannot truly love another if they can make love with a third. But why? We don't say that a parent must not love their child if they have another one, or that a person must not truly love their friend if they are close with others. So why do we do this with sex? And on the flip side, why do we give so much more value to sexual relationships? One very blatant example of this that comes to mind is a dynamic that seems to occur frequently in polyamourous families. There will be three people involved, all of whom have close emotional ties with one another, but not everyone is having sex with each other, ie. person Q is sexually connected to both persons M and G while persons M and G are not sexually connected to each other yet care very much for one another. I have heard this situation described as both a triad because there are bonds of affection between the three, and I've heard it described as a "V" based on the lines of sexual connection. Personally I think of it as a triad due to the bonds of affection but more strongly believe it is up to the people involved to be able to choose their own identity and definition, and now I'm wandering off topic.
When I hear of a situation like that described as a "V" I feel as though the non-sexual relationship is being invalidated and devalued. Do we really need to fuck for it to mean something? Don't get me wrong, I love sex, but some of my strongest and deepest bonds are with people I have never had sex with, and doubt I ever will have sex with. Does that make them any less relevant to my life, the relationships any less real? I don't think so. Is a person who is only sexual with one person yet sharing deep loves with others polyamourous? I think it is possible. My personal tendency seems to be towards serial monogamy, yet I share deep loves with others with whom I am not sexually connected...  to the degree that there have been jealousy issues in a number of my sexual relationships... so now I am toying with different ways of looking at relationships...  if I am sexually connected to only one person yet have a friend with whom I am deeply emotionally attached and make time to spend together one-on-one, is that or is that not polyamoury? If each person has a special, huge place in my heart, and that heart would break at the thought of losing either of them from my life, is that or is that not polyamoury? Do we really need to be fucking someone for the relationship to be acknowledged and valued for the great love that it is? If so, how sad. If not, then maybe we really are learning more ways of loving.

I think people are intrinsically selfish and self-motivated and we hide behind right and wrong...... we use it to justify our actions, or take actions to try to prove ourselves right to avoid judgment.

I don't know that there is any ultimate right or wrong... I don't know that there is any ultimate anything... I do know that i want to live in a world in which all children are safe and fed and grow up surrounded by love and acceptance.. i want to live in a  world in which everyone is free to be, and everyone pays attention to whether or not they are hitting their neighbours when they swing their arms freely, and chooses to avoid hitting their neighbours be it accidentally or otherwise... a world in which beauty is chosen over harm, love is chosen over hate, forgiveness is chosen over anger and grudges and judgment... and i want this to come from place of actual authentic caring rather than a sense of good or bad, right or wrong, what will get me closer to entrance into some kind of heavenly afterlife.

What if we didn't have the excuse of "it was the right thing to do" or "it's what god wants, the holy book says, my church tells" to fall back on.. what if we only ever had our own selves and our own motives to hold accountable... what if national leaders were honest about what wars were motivated by... what if I help someone carry their groceries not because i want to feel good about myself for doing the right thing, but because I want to live in a world in which people help each other so am doing the best i can to help create that world...

Namaste and Blessings.