(I wrote this on January 25th, 2002)

I still remember my first date with KWC, back in 1990 ... how nerve-wracking it was ... because I'd never met somebody so attractive in so many ways who also seemed to like me.

We went to our first lunch together, but I could hardly eat a bite, my stomach was so topsy-turvy.

Soon after, he took me to meet a couple of his friends. These guys were a great couple, very fashionable, friendly, great cooks, excellent conversationalists. They knew a lot about things that I didn't understand. I felt very intimidated by them, and felt like I was unworthy of KWC's hand.

Worthy or not, we stayed together, lived together, were in a monogamous relationship for over 7 years, and remain close friends today.

-----

Sometimes when I encounter people who have well-developed interests that I don't share, I feel intimidated. I fall into tunnel-vision and only notice that I am lacking a particular quality. I realize that I can't compete with them on that level, and I wonder why I'm still being invited along.

-----

In the polyamorous world of multiple romantic relationships, we and our partners will find ourselves attracted to a diverse range of people. Some of our partners will have qualities that other partners don't share. Some of our partners will enjoy activities that other partners don't enjoy.

Even monogamous relationships can be tough to establish and maintain. With polyamorous relationships, you have to be willing to face ... and accept ... that there are areas in which you don't excel ... that there are activities you don't enjoy ... even though other people excel in and enjoy those things ... that your uniqueness is to be treasured despite these limitations. An emerald is beautiful, as is a sapphire, as is a gold medallion, as are ... all the other forms we behold.

The future is always unknown; right now you are standing outside your structures of denial. The longer you stand outside, the easier it gets.

-----

(I wrote this on February 1, 2002)

There is an interesting method out there, in the world, for criticizing people ... a method in which idealistic or controlling people pick on others (or themselves) for having (or expressing) difficult emotions.

"You shouldn't feel so [insert emotion here]" or even "I shouldn't feel so [insert emotion here]"

Maybe the offending emotion is insecurity, or fear, or pride, or anger, or satisfaction, or sadness, or ... whatever emotion somebody thinks we shouldn't feel.

That whole "boys don't cry" thing ...

-----

In the world of polyamorous relationships, newcomers or observers might idealistically think that poly people don't ever feel jealous or insecure, that poly people don't have needs, or that "anything goes" in poly relationships.

In my experience, and from my reading, poly people have all the same emotions that monogamous people have. Poly people, though, have to find different ways of dealing with their jealousies, insecurities, fears, and sadnesses ... they can't just tell their partners to stop flirting, to stop having sex with other people, or to drop their other romantic relationships.

Many poly partners work out agreements or understandings to help each other cope with their negative emotions. Many poly people find themselves using a different kind of vocabulary to express their emotions -- they use "I" instead of "you", to take responsibility for their emotions without blaming others. They may ask for help rather than demanding it, knowing that their partners must juggle other relationships and commitments besides their own.

-----

Not all people who try poly relationships will be able to construct working models with their initial partners. Compatibility matters across many more dimensions than (1) a willingness to have more partners, or (2) a willingness to share partners. In my first open relationship I was unable/unwilling to create the structures that my partner needed to feel secure. He was often very angry, especially toward the end, because our relationship wasn't meeting his needs.

I could have reacted by saying, "You shouldn't feel so jealous. You shouldn't feel so insecure." I could have labeled him, diagnosed him, designated him as the source of the problem. Instead, I did try to work with him on these issues. Unfortunately, after a while, we spent most of our limited time together dealing with issues, and had little time left for fun. Eventually he gave up on me, amidst great anger and frustration.

-----

Ah, well ... I sure would hate to be in a relationship where my partner(s) blamed me for having emotions. I find that things work out much better when we express all our feelings and search for ways to make everybody more comfortable.

(I wrote this on February 1, 2002)

My personality type, INFP, is one that feels & expresses deep emotions and views the world intuitively (rather than concretely).

Even though I'm polyamorous, enjoying multiple open relationships, I still believe in setting up ground rules, agreements, or other forms of structure for my relationships with others. Many of my relationships benefit greatly from the creation of explicit boundaries -- so that each individual feels secure and in control. Not every friendship benefits from sex ... not every sexual encounter should lead to romantic attachment ... it is important to discuss these things to avoid unnecessary confusion and pain, so that each person has a chance to meet the other's expectations.

Sometimes these boundaries and structures can get in the way of needed growth and exploration ... I suppose that one could explore relationships without any structure at all, without any ground rules ... having no expectations and no goals ...

Over the long term, though, I think that both structure and exploration are necessary. While change is inevitable, and ever-present, change is not the same thing as chaos. It is possible to create areas of stability, areas in which to rest and escape and relax. Humans can only process a certain amount of change before they start breaking down.

-----

I thought about the great explorers through history ... there is no way somebody would have set out to climb Mount Everest without first planning the journey, without setting up base camps along the way ... sometimes you have to set up a detailed structure in order to explore places you've never been.

-----

(I wrote this on February 15, 2003)

The secret of love is that you can not love somebody else more than you love yourself. The idea that we can love others more than we love ourselves is an illusion ... it limits both our love for others and our love for ourselves.

(I wrote this on February 11, 2003)

Threats of war and terrorism flood the media. Department of Homeland Security officials say that Washington, DC, is a target. I live in DC. I work in DC. I jog in DC. I go to the gym in DC. I do my grocery shopping in DC. I am almost always within a mile or two of the White House, the Capitol, and the Pentagon. My own local Post Office 20024 was shut down due to Anthrax contamination.

Then again, I could live without snail-mail indefinitely ;-)

-----

I don't know why I am more susceptible to these sorts of threats than the everyday risk of dying, perhaps from latent heart defects, or undiagnosed cancer, or being hit by an SUV while crossing the street. More people die each year from garden-variety murders in this city than died from Anthrax exposure, or even from the crash into the Pentagon. Really, I should be more scared of crime than of terrorist plots.

-----

Heh ... that's not exactly comforting.

-----

When I pulled a muscle in my back a couple weeks ago, I was in a tremendous amount of pain. I could barely move for 3 days.

I decided to use some of these secret Buddhist mind tricks ... so I welcomed the pain.

It worked!

The pain didn't go away, but ... my welcoming approach to the pain changed my experience of the pain. I still took medication to ease the pain -- ibuprofen, Kava Kava, and a narcotic sleep aid -- but the injury didn't drag my mood down. I still had friends over, got to spend hours nekkid with a HOT man, and enjoyed living :-)

Can I enjoy dying?

-----

Opinions about life-after-death abound ... Heaven, Hell, Reincarnation, etc. Some people claim to have memories of past lives. Some people return from "near-death" experiences with astounding stories of reunification with dead loved ones.

Near-death is not death. The reason we are able to bring these people back is because they aren't really dead yet. You aren't dead the moment you stop breathing. I can stop breathing right now!

*holding breath*

Hmmmm ... my heart is still beating ... I've held my breath for nearly a minute now ...

Heh, enough of that.

Plus, you aren't dead the moment your heart stops beating. I can't demonstrate this for you, because my heart muscle is involuntary, so you'll just have to take my word for it.

Death is a process, it takes a while for all the individual cells in your body to die. This is why organ donation works.

Defining death can be difficult ... especially if you disallow enbalming or cremation ... because left alone the human body never completely dies ... it merely transforms ... it becomes food for other organisms ...

-----

If death is the end of consciousness, I can't exactly welcome it (or resist it), because "I" won't be there. If death is something else, then perhaps I'll like it more than life. Either way, all the evidence suggests that I'll die sooner or later. Death is inevitable.

-----

What good does it do me to fear it? Especially to fear it in abstract ways? Especially when the means and moment are out of my control?

We are taught from a young age to avoid danger, because the people who care about us don't want to lose us.

Then we learn the concept of death for ourselves ... and we avoid danger because we don't want to lose ourselves.

Losing ourselves.

Death is, then, the ultimate in letting go.

Letting go is not abandonment. Letting go is not pushing away. Letting go of life is not the same thing as suicide. Letting go is ... letting go ... dropping the leash, relaxing the muscles, admitting that we can't really hold on.

-----

(I wrote this on February 7, 2003)

What is Spirituality for? Why is it valuable? Why would a smart fella like me spend so much time and effort developing his spiritual side? What the hell is spirituality?

The dictionary is not much help here.

I'll take a stab at it ... spirituality deals with the fact that we are conscious beings, that we feel, that we are more than machines or mathematical equations -- we are observers-in-the-world, subject to our surroundings at least as much as we are in control of them. Spirituality deals with the inescapable facts of birth and death, the questions we have about where we came from and where we are going, and the questions we have about the proper usage of our bodies, minds, and surroundings.

Spirituality is about a lot of things! People can be trained from birth in the proper forms of their inherited religion, but they tend not to reach for spirituality on their own until they are confronted with pain and loss. A life-threatening illness or accident ... the death of a close family member or lover ... divorce ... unemployment ... imprisonment ... chronic pain or disability ... powerful addictions ... poverty ... war ... natural disasters ...

In the face of pain and loss, spirituality offers hope, meaning, and serenity. In the face of abandonment, spirituality offers community.

Then again, maybe spirituality is a way to discover happiness in a universe that simply doesn't give a damn about you ;-)

-----

There are two broad categories of spirituality.

One type is the oracular. A deity reveals her powers, knowledge, and design via sacred prophets, writings, and symbols.

Another type is the existential. A human investigates the nature of the universe by paying attention and using her own powers of perception and reason.

I tend to favor the second type, perhaps because I've been raised to have confidence in my own powers of perception and reason, perhaps because I've done so well in competitions of the intellect. We who think we are smarter than the rest of you tend to prefer our own answers ;-) And maybe we prefer to think that we are the true source of our own answers ...

-----

There are two more broad categories of spirituality.

One type is the controlling. Leaders communicate the commandments of the sect to their followers. Followers are given a list of shoulds and shouldn'ts, are told what is good and evil, and are disciplined either currently or eternally for their unforgiven sins.

Another type is the liberating. Seekers discover how their emotions, attitudes, and behaviors have been conditioned by past experiences or instincts. Practitioners learn to separate themselves from excess suffering and remain calm in the face of chaos or adversity.

Again, I tend to favor the second type.

-----

The world is full of professional spiritual leaders. They write books, lead worship ceremonies, administer charities, run organizations. These people are happy to entertain you with their wisdom ... but they tend to ask for something in return. They want your membership, your contributions, your time, and your behavioral allegiance.

They tend to mix their spiritual advice with a request that you do something in return for your newfound meaning and serenity. Being happy isn't good enough, you see. You must also try to spread the word, and follow a code of conduct, and identify with a brand-name religion. There are rules to follow, initiation ceremonies, and service for the less fortunate in your community. In return for salvation, you are to be compassionate and compliant.

-----

Isn't it possible to find spiritual fulfillment on our own? Or, isn't it possible to leave the "spiritual community" behind once you've learned what they have to teach you? Is a life of dedication and service really necessary?

To me, this is the great bait 'n' switch of spirituality. We are given the keys to eternal life, or enlightenment, or whatever, and then we are expected to serve other people. I don't mean to suggest that service is somehow bad, or evil, or wrong ... only that it isn't really necessary.

For that matter, spirituality isn't necessary! And people can lead lives of service without being particularly spiritual about it -- I mean, most of us are serving others when we are employed. Most of us are following the directions of others when we are in school.

Why is spirituality almost always tied up with notions of servitude? Probably because professional spiritual leaders can't pay their own rent unless they convince a significant portion of their followers to tithe and volunteer. They sell the idea of service along with the ideas of spirituality so that when they ask for contributions, you'll pay. Your service to others is OK too, as long as you pay the church first. And the church will give a small portion of its revenues to the poor (or, to people who claim to be helping the poor), to make it look like giving to the church is helping the poor :-) Of course, most spiritual leaders use their gifts to the poor to gain more followers from the ranks of the poor ... because many people who experience poverty do so only temporarily, and will repay later with gratitude :-)

-----

Oh, I'm so cynical ... but it is the truth. Most advocates for community service are really trying to pay their own rent with your money. They may actually provide service to the community too! And they may actually feel good about that! Like I said, I don't think such charity is evil ... but I don't think it is a necessary component of spirituality. I don't think that community service is necessary to feel calm in the face of chaos or adversity.

Mainly, generosity is repaid by the gratitude of some of the recipients, in friendship, in hugs, or in promises to repay. A generous person is likely to have a network of friends and family he can rely on during hard times.

(I wrote this on February 6, 2003)

Some people refuse to be intimate while letting go, the very idea is hateful or depressing to them, going against all they've been taught to believe and all they've experienced thus far.

I'm going to presume that "letting go" means "I'm prepared to accept that I may never see you again." And really, we never know whether we'll see somebody again. We often comfort ourselves with a belief in stability, but we have no idea what tomorrow will bring. People die, people move away, people decide to fill their lives with other pursuits, people grow apart unintentionally. And sometimes people react angrily to something we've done and leave us.

I'm going to presume that "intimate" means holding nothing back, neither physically nor emotionally. Intimacy is the natural expression of togetherness. Intimacy does not necessarily mean having sex, or telling each other our entire life's stories ... but it does mean allowing ourselves to do those things when it makes sense. No running away, no changing the subject, no obsessions with past, future, or unavailable things ... just being-present for each other, touching and communicating.

The years I've spent outside of the monogamy box -- since August 1998 -- have been all about learning to appreciate people without possessing them. This has been a difficult road at times, but it has also been a road of plenty, because there are so many people to appreciate once we let go of the desire to possess them.

I believe I can be intimate while letting go. In fact, I believe it is one of the most joyous activities that mature polyamory brings into our lives -- learning that opening ourselves to (potentially) transient people is a pleasure, because we are actually opening ourselves to the pleasures of the present moment.

When you love people as they are, you bring them closer to God.

Some politicians stand for the simple proposition that gays and lesbians should be treated exactly the same as heterosexuals under the law:

"Today, in the world as we find it, real people are suffering if the state refuses to record their marriages. I don't find there's such an excess of love and commitment in this world, or that any of us enjoys such a certain moral superiority to our brothers and sisters, that we can decide for them what path their lives should take. I fail to see what's charitable or compassionate about arguing that any sincere expression of love or concern or mutual commitment should be banned by an all-powerful state. Church and state must be separate," Rick Tompkins, candidate for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination concluded. "Gay marriages must be allowed." ^www.lp.org

We support the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people in housing, jobs, civil marriage and benefits, child custody – and in all areas of life, the right to be treated equally with all other people. ^{Green Party Platform}

I support Federal legislation for Same-Sex Marriage. It is simple: every American citizen is entitled to the full rights, privileges and responsibilities under the US Constitution, including civil marriage. Civil unions do not afford some 1,049 rights, privileges and responsibilities that come with the designation of marriage. Our Constitution protects the rights of individuals in a free society--free even from religious discrimination. Our constitution proclaims ALL are equal, we can not exclude some citizens based on discrimination, fear, and hatred. ^{Dennis Kucinich, candidate for the Democratic Party presidential nomination}

Other politicians don't:

"I oppose gay marriage and disagree with the Massachusetts court's decision," — Senator John Kerry, candidate for the Democratic Party presidential nomination ^{news.yahoo.com}

(I first wrote this on January 24, 2002)

Exploitation -- coaction between organisms in which one is benefitted at the expense of the other.

-----

Life depends on energy. Plants get most of their energy from absorbing sunlight. Herbivores (plant-eating animals) get most of their energy from eating plants. Carnivores (meat-eating animals) get most of their energy from eating other animals.

Humans (tool-using animals) nowadays get most of their energy from so-called "natural" resources, such as oil, coal, methane, and uranium. The food energy that humans ingest today is only a small portion of the total energy used by humans. The most energy-intensive human societies spend only a tiny fraction of their output on food, yet most of their citizens overeat.

-----

Most animals appear to use hunting & gathering techniques for acquiring their food. However, there are several examples in "the wild" of non-human species engaged in farming, parasitism, and even slavery. There are also many examples of symbiotic relationships, in which various species live off each other, or even inside each other, unable to survive without each other.

-----

The various liberal social movements of the past 300 years, including democracy, labor unions, abolition, emancipation, feminism, civil rights, socialism, environmentalism, veganism ... all have at their heart an idealistic notion, that living beings should not exploit each other, should not live parasitically off each other, should not own each other ...

Yet, we humans continue to live in hierarchical societies organized upon the foundations of property and exploitation. It doesn't yet appear possible, for those of us who aren't plants, to live without consuming material that either is living, was living, or was produced by another living being.

I suppose that the social movements listed above have made life easier for certain beings who are no longer exploited as much or as often ...

-----

(I first wrote this on January 14, 2002)

I've heard many fellas who are creating new romantic relationships say this recently, "We've decided to take things slow" or "I'm making sure to take things slow."

Hearing this from so many people recently, each of whom finds himself in a unique situation, completely baffled me this morning.

I had no firm understanding of what these people were talking about!

If romantic relationships have a "speed" component, I'm not at all sure what that component represents.

-----

Perhaps it represents a certain rate of vocabulary adoption. Such as, how long you wait before you use the term "boyfriend" or the term "love". For example, I have learned not to trust people who tell me that they love me when they've only known me for a couple weeks. These people tend to be unreliable and unstable, despite their professed "love".

Whatever "love" may be! I tend to be a quick judge of character, and I can figure out a lot about somebody after just a few weeks ... and I do believe that you can love (care about) somebody shortly after meeting ... but people who quickly profess love for each other, in my experience, tend to be rather flakey about maintaining that emotion.

Personally, I wouldn't use that term until I'd learned more about his relationship history and had some idea what that word meant to him. Love is a damnably slippery word ... better to use long sentences at first, when describing feelings for each other, and save the "L" word for later.

But what does that have to do with "taking things slow"? Is it just a matter of waiting two months before saying "I love you?" Does the vocabulary adoption rate have anything to do with how "quickly" the relationship is actually progressing?

-----

Another possible time-based component in romantic relationships is -- how quickly the two (or more) people merge households. I have seen gay men shack up with each other almost overnight. I've never done that ... The only time I've ever set up a permanent living arrangement with a boyfriend was after we'd been dating for 3 years. I guess I'm "slow" by nature.

I've seen some of these quickly-shacked up men break up just as quickly, and then they are often stuck living with somebody they now hate, until alternate living arrangements can be made.

So, maybe "taking things slow" means not moving in together until a year has passed? I'd advise any prospective couple to wait at least a year before living together. It takes time to figure out whether your "love" will lead to compatibility in ... so many areas of practical sharing.

I'm not sure this is what all my friends have meant, though, when they recently told me they're making sure to take things slow.

-----

One other speed-related component I can think of is intensity. I suppose this means -- how quickly you open up to each other, how quickly you begin to communicate about important issues, how quickly you trust each other.

I have always been the type to open up and trust and communicate immediately. Personally, I see no reason to wait. In fact, I think waiting to open up is harmful to the formation of new relationships.

If you don't act like "yourself" from the start, then this other person is falling in love with a fake, and then when you do start acting like "yourself", this other person will be wondering "who the hell is this person I fell in love with?"

Maybe other people need time to learn to open up and trust each other and communicate with each other. I think my willingness to trust and communicate from Day One frightens people, leading them to think I'm "too intense" ... leading them to ask me if we can take things slow.

-----

So ... I've identified three possible speed-related components. I'm not sure which of these, if any, my friends are talking about. They all seem to think they know what they are talking about. If I'm to learn more about what they mean, I'm going to have to ask them.

To make the world a sensuous extension of man rather than have man remain an instrument of an alien world, is the goal of the situationist revolution. For us the reconstruction of life & the rebuilding of the world are one & the same desire. To achieve this, the tactics of subversion have to be extended from schools, factories, universities, to confront the spectacle directly. Rapid transport systems, shopping centers, museums as well as the various new forms of culture & the media, must be considered as targets for scandalous activity.

(I first wrote this on January 23, 2003)

Scanning other people's LiveJournal entries is so very instructive! A psychologist's wet dream! I love it!

I've learned to handle my empathic reactions a bit better than I used to. Witnessing somebody else feeling sad and depressed can be difficult. Empathy creates those same feelings inside of me, and then I wish I could help them, but ... reading a stranger's LiveJournal is not the same thing as being a friendly face knocking on his door with pizza, beer, and South Park DVDs ;-)

-----

Basically, reading other people's LiveJournals confirms my theory that most human beings feel the full range of emotions on a regular basis. Happy, Sad, Angry, Pleased, Depressed, Ecstatic, etc. Now, some people appear clinically depressed nearly all the time, and others appear weirdly happy no matter what ... but those are statistical outliers, the endpoints of the normal curve of mood distribution. Plus, those people may well be censoring their journals, only writing about the crappy or only writing about the grand.

LiveJournalers are not a random sample, so ... maybe I shouldn't assume they represent humanity ... but I'll make do with the observations I can make ;-)

-----

People use their journals to express their moods, and then they usually go one or two steps further by attributing their moods to something in their environment, or perhaps to something lacking in their environment, or perhaps to personality traits outside of their control. Only rarely do people realize that whatever mood they are feeling, it is temporary, and it will fade regardless of their external environment. Or ... if their mood is totally plugged into their external environment, well, guess what, their external environment will bring totally different joys and woes tomorrow ;-)

Moods change, and they also recur. The unwanted moods -- whatever they are -- recur. Many people try to figure out what causes these recurring unwanted moods, and how to avoid them. As if that were truly possible. As if that were truly helpful.

-----

I find it is very common on LiveJorunal to attribute our mood swings to the presence or absence of a boyfriend, or to the actions of current or former boyfriends. If we are feeling lonely, and have no boyfriend, then we think we are feeling lonely because we have no boyfriend. If we are feeling lonely, and we have a boyfriend, we think we are feeling lonely because we miss our boyfriend.

If we are feeling sad, and we have no boyfriend, we think we are feeling sad because we have no boyfriend. If we are feeling sad, and we have a boyfriend, we think we are feeling sad because there is something missing in our relationship with our boyfriend.

People think that their primary relationship should be making them happy ... and if they aren't happy, then something is wrong in the primary relationship department (either not having one, or having an imperfect one).

There is the occasional writer who claims to be perfectly happy with his boyfriend, or perfectly happy single ... but these statements have the force of faith behind them, they sound more like propaganda than truth ... claims of perfect happiness are structures of denial.

-----

One discovery we can make via breathing meditation is that we don't need external stimuli to experience the entire range of emotions. They happen anyway! If nothing is going on right in front of us, our busy brains think about the past, or fantasize about the future, and we experience moods. Amazing! Purely imaginary moods! I mean, they feel real, they are moods, but they are based completely upon our internal, unstimulated thoughts.

Then, as we return to the world of external events, our busy brains think about what is happening around us, and we experience moods. These moods aren't imaginary, or so we think, because they are based on what is happening around us. Look -- this awful thing just happened, right now, don't we feel awful about it! Look -- this wonderful thing just happened, right now, don't we feel grand?

-----

However, these moods result from the stories we tell ourselves, the stories we create to explain our present, past, and possible futures. Almost any set of facts can be viewed positively, negatively, or dispassionately, depending upon our beliefs & attitudes (our standards of judgment).

Change the stories we tell ourselves, change the beliefs & attitudes we bring to the situation, and ... completely different moods can result.

-----

Some moods seem to have a physiological basis. Various body-pain-discomfort-addiction issues can lead to bad moods ... but how much of these bad moods are the result of the discomfort, and how much of these bad moods are the result of negative attitudes about experiencing discomfort? That's what Buddhists often refer to as the difference between pain and suffering. We all feel pain from time to time ... but perhaps some of the time we can change our attitudes about pain. It is even possible to welcome pain ...

-----

So much of the suffering I see via LiveJournal is the result of wanting a different life, different circumstances, more of this and less of that, a boyfriend, a better boyfriend, a boyfriend who isn't traveling, a boyfriend who wants the same things we do ... a job, a better job, a job "with a future" ... or, for the politically astute, a better President, better laws, better enforcement of laws ...

Imagining a better life, and disliking the current life. We all do that. But we also have a choice -- we have the freedom to accept and enjoy our current lives no matter the circumstances. Our current lives are all we have (all we ever have, really). At some point, we make the decisions about what stories to tell ourselves, we make the decisions about which beliefs & attitudes we use to judge (or not judge) our circumstances.

(I first wrote this on January 14, 2003)

I've thought a lot about monogamy, open relationships, and polyamory. I've got meaningful relationship experience with each type of relationship. I've learned about the pros and cons, about the need for honest communication and negotiation in each type of relationship.

Personally, I think that life-long monogamy is irrational. To base a relationship solely on sexual exclusivity is silly, when there are so many important qualities that feed a good relationship. Plus, even the most saintly boyfriend will occasionally find himself tempted by another man. Should we throw away years of love because of one sexual adventure?

I think it makes much more sense to admit to each other that sexual exclusivity is not the ultimate basis for the relationship, to discuss what we like and dislike about relationships, and then to negotiate boundaries and ground rules. People who blame "sleeping around" for the problems in their relationships are typically ignoring the real problems. Often, in monogamous relationships, a partner sleeps with somebody else as a way of getting revenge or expressing anger.

Jealousy is often a problem in all kinds of relationships, but jealousy is not purely a sexual issue. Jealousy is also about expectations, fairness, and insecurity. People who are 100% monogamous still get jealous!

I also think that open relationships and polyamory are emotionally dangerous without the use of mutually negotiated boundaries and ground rules. It is all too easy to get a crush on somebody new and forget how important your established relationships are. But, hey, you can get a crush on somebody new even if you are faithfully monogamous. I promise you that if you live long enough, you'll get a crush on somebody other than your mate.

If we're sincere in our devotion to the business of creating a better world, then we cannot afford to imitate (and therefore reproduce) the one-dimensional, literalist, fanatical, party-line, scapegoat-creating modes of thought that the patriarchy has specialized in.

What that means is:

1) We have to be in ongoing conversation with our own personal shadows; in other words, we have to apply the same revolutionary zeal to dissolving our own internal fixations as we do to toppling the ignorance we see in the world around us.

2) We can't afford to dehumanize anyone, even the people who dehumanize us.

3) We have to be humble about how complicated the world is, and therefore we have to be less than arrogantly certain in claiming we always know what's best in every situation; we have to be subtle, multi-leveled, and willing to acknowledge the ambiguity inherent in real life.

4) We have to understand that political struggle is half-baked unless it's anchored in soul work. What's soul work?
a. A ruthless, ongoing self-examination that continually regenerates our shadows.
b. The cultivation of less literal modes of knowing the world.
c. A desire to translate our high ideals into the marrow of our everyday interactions.
d. A determination to keep from becoming predictable rhetoricians forever hammering home our pet theories even as the world is recreating itself right in front of our blind eyes.

5) Our political work proceeds with far more efficacy and grace if it's mixed with at least some amount of poetry and myth and magic and ritual and soul.