(I wrote this on January 31, 2003)

One of the justifications for democracy rests upon something we call The Rule of Law. In an absolutist monarchy or dictatorship, the leader (and her favored elite) seemingly gets to do whatever she wishes, and does not have to follow the rules she promulgates for others. That's not fair! We the people resent that! However, in a democracy, supposedly the same rules apply to everybody, regardless of race, class, or title.

I say "supposedly" because statistical studies and my own experience both teach me that my own democracy does not apply the same rules to everybody. The law is full of exceptions and loopholes. Those who enforce the laws are often mistaken, racist, sexist, and heterosexist. People with money can often evade the full force of the law, while people without money are often treated harshly.

However, even if The Rule of Law were absolute, perhaps especially if The Rule of Law were absolute, I do not think it would be a good thing. Despite the ideals of our Founders, all people are created unequal. Each one of us is unique -- in our genetic makeup, in our backgrounds, memories, appetites, and current positions on the planet. Why should each unique individual be required to follow the same rules? Rules that work for me won't necessarily work for you. We all have different personalities, different workstyles, different physical and emotional needs, different amounts of energy and intelligence ...

This is why bureaucracies drive us nuts. Bureaucrats (myself included) try to fashion rules and regulations that will apply to all situations. If the rules are too simple, then people complain that the rules shouldn't apply to their particular circumstances, they complain that the rules aren't "fair". If the rules attempt to cover every possible circumstance, then they become so complex that nobody really understands them, and people complain that the rules are too complicated (and still aren't fair!).

As my mother would often say when I questioned her rules, the world isn't fair, so I'd better get used to that. But the childlike quest for fairness and justice continues in the adult quest for democracy and The Rule of Law. It also shows up in fundamentalist religions that attempt to prescribe one set of rules or commandments that all should follow for the good of all.

(In fact, there is no significant difference between a democracy's laws and a fundamentalist religion's commandments.)

The Rule of Law doesn't really exist, probably can't exist, and probably would be a bad thing if it did exist ... but its abstract goodness motivates us to create, enforce, and follow laws regardless of whether these laws make sense for each of us.

Laws are not to be revered. Unless you wrote the law yourself, a law is a rule that somebody else wrote, probably somebody you've never met who knows nothing about you or your circumstances. In some cases the person writing that law was openly hostile to your and your circumstances! So why should you follow it?

(I wrote this on January 15, 2003)

Some broadly defined, general life stages that people go through, with regard to relationships (and careers). I don't want to associate each stage with a particular age, because people go through these stages (or don't) at their own paces.

(1) I have no idea what I want, but I keep trying to find something anyway.

(2) I know exactly what I want, and this is not it. Neither is that. When will I find what I want? Will I ever find what I want?

(3) I found it, exactly what I want, yay, all mine!

(4) What I wanted ... was not what I thought it would be. I want something else.

(5) I don't know what that something else is, but if it looks or smells anything like what I had before, I'm running away.

(6) OK, I've learned my lessons! Now I know exactly what I want again. When will I find what I want? Will I ever find what I want?

(7) I found it, exactly what I want, yay, all mine!

(8) What I wanted ... was not what I thought it would be. I want something else.

(9) Maybe nothing is exactly what I want. Maybe nothing is what I thought it would be.

(I wrote this on January 13, 2003)

You know how lots of single fellas are looking for somebody "special" ... somebody who will make them think they are "special" too?

First off, I'm already special. I don't need to be dating anybody to know that, and dating anybody won't make me feel "more" special. I'm special, as is, right now.

Plus ... just because I decide to date you, that doesn't make you "special" either. You were already special before we ever met. Got that?

(I wrote this on January 10, 2003)

As y'all know, every so often a Buddhist insight comes crashing through my head ... here's today's, about "living in the moment":

A few times recently I've heard or read a friend saying, "I need to try to live in the moment more often," as though it were a New Year's resolution sorta thing, like going on a diet.

Well ... you are already living in the moment. You don't have to "try" living in the moment, it happens anyway. All you have is this present moment, whether you like it or not. If you are thinking about tomorrow, you are ... surprise! ... still living in the moment. If you are thinking about yesterday, you are still living in the moment! The moment doesn't go away. You don't go away. You are stuck here.

(I wrote this on January 10, 2003)

Sometimes it helps, in gaining insight, to think about who is trying to control a relationship, and how.

Relationships have a lot of control issues. Many people view their close personal relationships as the one area of their lives that they can (or should) control, build, and stabilize ... instead of simply relating with compatible others by spending occasional time together doing mutually interesting activities.

Humans do tend to be territorial, having constructed social norms of property and ownership for practically every object on (or within) the planet. Humans, like many living creatures, are territorial in order to provide personal survival, comfort, and security.

We humans also tend to be territorial about our close personal relationships. We use possessive pronouns when talking about "my boyfriend" or "my children" or "my best friend". We feel jealousy when these relationships appear threatened, and we feel anger & sadness when these relationships do not progress in the ways we intend them to. Typically we are socialized to value exclusive, lasting, and committed relationships more than transient ones, even though the demands of school, career, home maintenance, and commercial entertainment ensure that we spend only a small fraction of our waking hours attending to our most highly valued relationships.

Perhaps this is why lovers usually sleep together ... it is the only time they have left ;-)

-----

Humans, like other social animals, tend to create systems of dominance and submission within an organized hierarchy of control.

There are so many ways in which people try to control their close personal relationships, but perhaps most of them sort into a few basic categories.

There is, of course, violence (and the threat of violence), but "modern" Western cultures frown upon using violence to control our mates. Most forms of personal violence have been criminalized by Western governments, and many social welfare agencies offer assistance to the victims of domestic violence to help them escape their "dysfunctional" relationships. However, I've heard many people use phrases like, "He'd kill me if he found out," or "Over my dead body," when talking about their mates.

In addition to violence, people also use bribery, negotiation, flattery, persuasion, blackmail, demonstrative emotional outbursts (both positive & negative), strikes, lockouts, walkouts, lies, threats, sexual arousal, and emotional abuse. This is not a flattering picture of relationships ... but the pleasant cultural mythology of "happy relationships" is itself part of the system of control, it is the carrot we dangle in front of each other's noses ... if you want a happy relationship with me, you'd better behave appropriately.

-----

People who seem to spontaneously behave the way we want them to are considered "compatible" and "desirable" partners. Controlling other people is a lot of work, and we'd rather start with a partner who is already behaving in many of the ways we want them to ;-)

Over time, some partners become easier to control, and other partners become more difficult to control. Some relationships end when the battle for control alienates one or both of the partners. In many long-term relationships, partners work out a variety of agreements that are more-or-less self-enforcing, in order to reduce the burdens of monitoring and controlling each other's behavior.

-----

Is love anything other than a system of control? Maybe if all of the people within a relationship truly have no expectations regarding other's behaviors, maybe if all of the people have unconditional positive regard for each other.

But expectations are what make relationships special. Why have a relationship with Mr. X instead of Mr. Y if we have no expectations for their behaviors? Without positive and negative judgments about the behaviors of other people, we have no reason to choose one person over another for our limited number of available close relationships. Once we have chosen people, positive and negative judgments about their behaviors give us reasons to maintain or abandon relationships.

And feedback -- communicating these judgments to the other person -- is always an important feature of control systems -- which is why good communication skills are helpful to the survival of all kinds of long-term relationships.

-----

As long as my homosexuality does no harm to anybody else (and I don't see how it possibly could) I don't think it matters why I'm homosexual, so I stay out of the nature/nurture debate.

(I wrote this on January 24, 2004)

If you are busy looking for a boyfriend, you aren't living your own life, you aren't maximizing your own opportunities for fun, you are acting as though you yourself aren't capable of having a life without somebody else to hold your hand. You are asking somebody to join your life, but you don't even have a life, all you have is a search algorithm.

If you are looking for a boyfriend, among all the strangers in your city, you create a bunch of judgmental standards to filter through the innumerable possibilities. This turns the search for companionship into a bureaucratic process, like sifting through college applications. As you meet each person, from the moment you meet him, you are judging him, to see whether he can fill your imaginary boyfriend role.

(I wrote this on January 12, 2004)

During lunch, the long-dead Thomas Merton lectured me about the incompatibilities between serving God and serving your own flesh. He felt that gambling at a carnival was a sin, that trying to pick up girls at a bar was a sin, that getting drunk with friends was a sin. These were all sins he had committed, of course. He wasn't picking on other people, he was picking on himself ... in the hopes of teaching others how to live more saintly lives by his own transforming example.

If God created me, if I am a junction for Jesus, if the Holy Spirit moves through me, why can't we all feel good together from time to time? Why can't I spend a portion of my entertainment budget on gambling? Why can't I try to meet new fellas? Why can't I drink with friends? These are enjoyable things, fun things, things that help us to bond with friends and strangers through shared good times -- things that give us the strength to face adversity.

(I wrote this on January 2, 2004)

Roger said I should write a book entitled Part of Me Feels Guilty. He said lots of people would buy it, and would nod their ways through it.

He's always telling me to write about my experiences. As if I didn't!

He thinks I should have them "published" ...

-----

Life is pretty good to me. So good that it even lets me squander how good it is to me. I've been given intelligence, good health, family & friends, all of my material needs, and an emotional temperament that refuses to give up.

And part of me feels guilty.

Which is why I envy cats. And birds. And fish. And all of the non-memetic species, and everybody who hasn't woken from the n^th order meme dream.

-----

How does one put enlightenment back into its bottle? Automatically.

I always have more work to do ... More reality to accept. More loving of you and you and you. More attention to now. More wild moments.

Today, he bought me this ring :-)

The best argument I've ever heard for monogamy is the desire to avoid catching and spreading sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), especially the nastier ones like HIV — the virus that causes AIDS. I do respect people who decide to limit their sexual partners. I limit mine ... I just do so in a less rigorous fashion ;-) Plus, sexual monogamy is no reason to avoid hugs, snuggles, and nekkid massage :-)

However, it is interesting to me that, in developed countries like the United States, the only generally fatal or disabling communicable diseases are those spread by sexual contact. I think this is the direct result of our society's moral judgments against sex and promiscuity. These moral judgments cause the typical person, and our leaders, to believe that AIDS is the fault of the person who catches it, and that our society need not strain itself to find a vaccine or cure.

If HIV were spread "casually", via saliva or sneezing or coughing, we all know there'd be a vaccine or cure by now. All the casually spread diseases that can truly harm a person have a vaccine, or they are immediately stamped out via epidemiological quarantines.