Sed... Amor Omnis Est! (Pars Duo Duorum)

BUT…Love is Everything! (Part Two of Two)

“Monogamy is my favourite hardwood.” - Reive Doig

How many partners we should have is not the end of the argument, though. No matter if you practice monogamy (how can you get good at it if you don’t practice?), polyamory or something in between, you still need to find and keep each partner. And that’s the interesting bit: whether you say goodbye when things get hard or work through it, whether you jump right in because you just know, whether you're waiting or searching or discovering...it's all about Destiny and Growth (click for the quiz!)

There's some attempt to keep the argumentation here logical, but talking about romance and reproductive strategy means I'm gonna have to use the word "I".

There are two tracks of thinking about your romantic life, your belief in "the one" and your belief in "working for it". And these beliefs sometimes don't line up the way you'd expect. They're not two end points on a continuum, they're two distinct lines that intersect. Because immediate compatibility and inclination towards effort aren't mutually exclusive.

I, personally, think "soulmate" is a ridiculous, useless word...and that's after almost five years with a person that said "...I can tell things are going to be different with you" the first time we slept together. Slowly I, too, could see a difference; I don't believe in destiny but I certainly think there aren't a lot of personalities that I can put up with long enough to have a real relationship.

Eventually I was told, "I don't fall often, but when I do I fall fast and I fall hard." I also felt by then that we were a compatible pair; I had the traits he needed, he had the traits I needed. We could be great, like Anthony and Cleopatra, Romeo and Juliet...other pairs that had killed themselves. Though I had no interest in following the vision of the great artists quite that far. I began to think I didn't have to work quite so hard in this relationship.

...And then he fell fast and he fell hard for someone else.

The reasoning is clear. Believing in compatibility as a reason for love means believing that there are a lot of people that are perfect for you. And that means you'll meet more than one at a time.
But, while it was not what I was ready for (because the falling entails wooing, and I am a spoiled brat that was no longer being wooed), and I stopped getting that "perfect for me" vibe for a while...we both were, and always will be, ready to work to fix and keep what we have.

So, all those pontificators saying "polys are so much more realistic about needs" without realising you're sometimes also saying "I need this person because we click"...shut up.
All of you monogamists, however, that think "they're the one" until they stop "working for you" and you divorce, you can shut up too.

Be ready to love, if you can be ready to love anyone that suits you...and if you can't give your love away to everyone who wants it, don't keep it hidden from the one who needs it.

Pars Unus Duorum

Part One of Two

"Relationship types are like pasta sauce. Everyone has a different recipe and everyone thinks theirs is best"–Reive Doig

What is this myth of the right relationship?  We have human brains now, after all, and Fight or F*ck just doesn’t seem to apply, anymore. There must be something to guide us in perfecting our reproductive and romantic strategies. Other primate species have it set in stone, it seems, based on their testes size . Bonobos have no worries that they’ll reproduce, with the extreme amount of sperm they create, nor do Gorillas, since everyone knows the Silverback’s got it made. But with “moderate sized” testicles packed between each set of cis-male legs, what are we supposed to assume about love and sex and relationship structure?

And I’m not just talking monogamy vs polyamory, either. That’s a blog topic that’s been done enough . And the literature that seem to be proposing sexual freedom is forgoing one very important point. One I’ve already made: we have human brains. We have differing cultures and thousands of years of adaptation and social expectations that surround us as we grow, which means there cannot be one right way to have a relationship except what works for each of us, right? Yes, it may be based on cultural indoctrination but it’s still a valid relationship strategy if it works for you and you’re comfortable.
Right?
So, what's the new fight about? Soulmates, apparently. And boy do I have something to say about THEM!

Maccellum Regit, or Goodbye Sci Fi

The Market Rules

Over the weekend I had a discussion with a friend concerning the change in how creative content is distributed. He torrents everything, I stream everything. And we chuckled over how little the studios can force crap upon us, now.

Except TV. Because no one will support a TV show that doesn't bring in ad revenue.Since Scyfy was bought, it stopped being the place for science fiction, etc. Quality programming isn't as important as marginally associated content that's cheap and gives lots of time for ads.
And if a show chooses something other than studio production it too has to at least reimburse the bankroller. I guess that explains why Sanctuary is ending. Space is filled with Star Trek and Stargate, science fiction movies and...Hollywood Treasure? That's not even an alternate history Hollywood, either; it's a reality show.
There are lots of geeky movies coming out, granted they're mostly based on novels (graphic and regular) or other franchises, but at least they're NEW.

If the nerds and geeks and technophiles are all happily torrenting and netflixing (netflicking? netflixating?) then there's noone watching TV shows that cater to them. And without someone bankrolling it there's no Netflix, is there? Until there's a season, there's no streaming, and until there's streaming there aren't enough watching for another season.
It's a Catch-22.

Hey, anyone want to greenlight that for a redo?

Favor Sexualis Tuus Definire Est

Sexual Preference is Yours to Define

It's impossible to change what you're attracted to, but we're not simple animals and we do not have to act upon that attraction. Perhaps that is where the concept of reparative therapy gained its traction. Perhaps wanting to not be gay made it possible for men and women to not act on their desires and to simulate desire for the opposite sex. But whether you're attracted to men, women or both is not a choice.
What is a choice is the term used to define your sexuality. And that choice is from a vast, complex field of possibilities...and you don't even have to define it if that's what's best for you. For you, not for anyone else. Because whatever your attraction, it's no one's right but yours to define
.
It seems easy, doesn't it, to think of others in singly-defined sexualities: there are lesbians and gays and straights and bis and asexuals. (NOTE: because this is about sexual preference and not gender identity I do not include in this list intersexed or trans* people.) But is that because we each of us know our own identities are perfectly clear cut? Is the Kinsey scale wrong in announcing a spectrum or two of sexuality? Of course not. In our own heads we know we're this or that but with caveats and exceptions...or not.
The choice to define, and the possibility of a personal definition that doesn't jibe with what others observe, can cause a lot of grief. And explaining the dissonance between attraction and orientation can cause a lot of grief. And there's enough grief just from coming to terms with an alternative attraction to begin with.

What I'm saying is don't use a label that you've not heard someone use for themselves. And stop calling me bi.

Latinus Mortuus Sed Anglicus Vivus Est

Latin is Dead But English is Alive

I am not a stickler for grammar. I really don't care if someone mistakes fewer and less or take and bring (except that I keep track in my head for conversations with Grammar Sticklers). I care about your/you're, their/they're/there, etc., though, because one should not need to reread basic sentences to figure out what the hell is going on. That's why attention to spelling and grammar is important. UR might seem nice and easy, but is it you are or yer (your)? I type "yer" sometimes 'cause sometimes I say yer. (I also occasionally type "yers" instead of yes, but only in text messages.) Numbers replacing words is sometimes okay, but is 4 supposed to be four or for? People who use textspeak really should proofread their missives for clarity, but if they're using this slang they probably don't feel they have time to make sure they're clear.
But isn't that the reason for sentence structure?
Case in point: I had to retype a Facebook comment because I typed "to" instead of "too". There is a great deal of confusion that can be caused by mixing up the two because (and promise not to tell any Grammar Sticklers out there) I split my infinitives.
Why do I split my infinitives, you ask? Because attempting to shoehorn Latin "rules" into the English language  is absolutely ridiculous. Even ignoring the fact that word order in Latin is not really consequential for the most part, the "split infinitive" rule would imply that the Latin preposition "ad" is used for infinitives, which it is not. Each infinitive verb in Latin is denoted by a single form of the verb. It's impossible to "split" a Latin infinitive since they didn't use spaces between words, or punctuation; if you add a word into an infinitive it would change the word completely (therefore, absofrigginglutely is impossible, unfortunately).
So, I split my infinitives, because emphasis is much more important to me than following made up grammatical rules--"to boldly go" sounds a lot better than "to go boldly".
But because I split my infinitives, I need to carefully guard my use of "to". "Too boldly go" sounds like a command to saunter forth very confidently, it's not the same as how one conducts one's mission "to boldly go" . And making that use clear is important.
Making your speech or writing clear is important--in fact, as far as I can see, it's the only important use of grammar, spelling and sentence structure. It is perhaps fun to catch out errors in published works, or to determine how much more "correct" a rephrasing could be; but it's no more important than identifying the ten differences between pictures in a children's magazine. So I should appreciate it if those who, like me, adore words, would be so kind as to shut the hell up about the rules of grammar that do not apply and are not necessary in modern communication. Encouraging interest in communication, reading and writing cannot be accomplished by tying down the eager with restrictive rules and regulations. If it could there would be more Math majors, instead of less.

Grammar is dead, long live grammar.