I Don't Have an Open Relationship

I guess it's time for me to get all worked up again.

This shit pisses me off.

Yes, on the one hand, it's good to start discourse about ethical nonmonogamy. I like that the author mentions several well-known folks who have hinted at or outright declared being nonmonogamous. We have to keep talking about it if anyone is to know it exists.

But.

The whole article talks about being in an open relationship or an open marriage. As if you still only get one relationship, and everything else is just some sort of bonus door prize.

It's still all about the idea of the couple and what they do. It's not "Will Smith has open relationships" or "Jada Pinkett-Smith has open relationships." (To be fair, they did say this of Dolly Parton, but I assume that's only because none of her partners are famous.) It seems as though none of Will's or Jada's other partners matter.

I take personal offense at this. It takes kind of a lot to offend me, so kudos are probably in order. Good job. You, Tricia Romano, managed to actually infuriate me. Enough to write a whole blog post about it, even.

I'm offended because I will never be part of the "couple" who has "an open relationship." This simply isn't possible for me. The way I began having ethically nonmonogamous relationships was by meeting (and subsequently falling in love with) two truly amazing people at the same time, both of whom were already nonmonogamous and in other relationships.

Ryder is married and lives with his wife. He has another long-distance partner, and had a second long-distance partner when I met him. Rusty lives with his girlfriend and was dating another person (maybe two, depending on how you count it) when we met.

I never "opened" my relationship with someone. I didn't start a monogamous relationship and decide to see other people too. I met two amazing men and we entwined our lives together.

This, I think, is the fundamental misunderstanding many monogamous people have about the rest of us. We don't do this as couples. We're people making our own independent choices about who we share our lives with. We ensure the people we do this with are comfortable with us sharing our lives and love and beds with people other than them. We don't act as couples, we act as individuals. We make our choices based on treating each other with dignity and respect.

From a perspective like that author's, I am a hobby, a side-quest, a supporting cast member in the lives of two people in an open relationship. I am what they do on the side. I am the extra lover. I am the "whatever he wants."

No. Fuck that. I am a whole person, and I matter just as much as anyone else. As much as I would never wish my metamours (my boyfriends' other partners) would be viewed as "the other women my boyfriend dates," I don't want to be that either. None of us are "others." We are a family, intricately, complexly linked via multiple bonds of love and trust.

And it's not like we don't participate in each other's lives. While I'm sure there are people who don't involve themselves in their partners' other relationships at all, I can't imagine living that way. I feel deeply connected not just to the people I love, but to the people they love, and the people those people love, etc. Our network stretches broadly, and all those folks are my family.

Actually, family is a good analogy, now that I think of it. I've mentioned before the idea of loving more than one child at a time as an illustration of how you can love more than one person simultaneously. Saying someone is in an open relationship is like saying someone has an open parent. It's like calling your brother "my mother's other son." Or saying that Jo and Beth had "other sisters."

So I say, to the journalists who think it would be cool to write about some celebrity couple's "open relationship": consider that the other people involved with those folks are people too. Consider that we have our own feelings and needs and wants and we all deserve to be treated with decency and respect. Consider how you would feel if you were relegated to the role of someone's "other" relationship. Yeah, we don't like it either.

Filling the Meter

Image courtesy of Pete

A question many people unfamiliar with polyamory often ask me is, "Don't you love one of your boyfriends more than the other?"

The simple answer is no. We poly folk often use the analogy of loving many children. Of course you can love more than one person at a time, and our society knows this well because people don't give up their firstborn for adoption when their second child comes along. This analogy pretty much holds true.

The more complicated answer is that love is big and I feel lots of it for both my boyfriends. Each day, my needs from each vary.

I'll give you an example. The past couple of weeks, my poly family has been enduring a truly harrowing emotional experience, affecting all of us to different degrees. It's been difficult for me, but not as difficult as it's been for others. I've been very lucky to have lots of support and give lots of support during this time.

For much of this time, Ryder has been out of town. Rusty and I have had lots of dates, and I've leaned on him for my emotional needs many, many times.

So now my Rustyometer is full. My Ryderometer is sorely lacking. I love Rusty and am so truly grateful to have had him near me, so I could cry, hug, laugh, and have all those other emotional releases. But I haven't been able to do that with Ryder, and the ache in my chest for him is so real it's physically painful. I need him right now, in ways I don't need Rusty right now.

Today, my need for time with Ryder is greater than my need for Rusty. This doesn't mean I love Ryder more. It just means I've met my needs where Rusty is concerned.

Interestingly, this is the opposite of our typical situation. Ryder and I usually get more time together because our dates often fall on weekends. Without maneuvering around work schedules, we end up spending much more time together than Rusty and I spend on our weekday dates.

I expect, although I don't know, that other people in poly relationships have similar experiences. Your meters for each partner may not be the same size. Mine are roughly equal, but I can easily imagine having a partner that you both get what you need from each other with far less time together. Thus, you might need more time with one than another to keep your meters adequately filled.

This isn't the same as loving one person more than another. Once upon a time, my Mothermeter was incredibly large. I needed lots of time with Mom in order to be okay. As I've gotten older, that meter has shrunk, and it takes much less time together to fill it up. Does that mean my love for my mother has diminished? Hardly. If anything, I love Mom now more than ever. Every new experience we have, every insight into her effect on my psyche, makes me more joyful to have her as my mom. My needs have shrunk, not my love.

With Rusty and Ryder, my meters right now are enormous. I can hardly keep them full, and only a constant discussion of schedules and who has what date nights keeps things manageable. Someday, perhaps, our meters will shrink, and then maybe there will be more room in our lives for other people. This will not indicate a reduction in our love for each other, any more than my having two meters indicates I'm lacking a single, larger one for just one of them. It will just mean our needs are met more easily.

Or, perhaps not. Perhaps I will always have enormous meters for each of them that stand to fall perilously low if we miss a couple of dates or tragedy befalls our family. This, we will manage. Because they will also have other people in their lives, so as much time as I spend with someone who isn't each of them, they have that much time to spend with someone who isn't me.

Probably worth noting: I am always happier when my absent lovers are with someone awesome than when they are alone (unless, of course, they are having scheduled Alone Time, which we all need). If I can't be with them, I certainly hope they can be with someone who makes them happy. Their happiness is my happiness.

I do feel that my needs from each of my boyfriends are as great as my needs from any monogamous partner I had in the past. While it takes twice as much effort to keep the meters full, the result is twice as much love. This was the thing that most surprised me when I began dating them: I didn't have two half-relationships, I had two complete relationships. Twice the dates. Twice the attention. Twice the love. Twice the sex. No, actually, maybe ten times the sex. My family really enjoys sex.

But you get the idea. Multiple relationships don't spread the love of one across many souls, they load up love until you are overflowing with it, until you're so drenched in it you can hardly breathe. And it's wonderful.

Why I Didn't Realize I was Raped

Trigger warning! If detailed descriptions of rape bother you, please do not continue reading.

I've posted a good deal lately about consent and rape culture. It's no secret that I'm adamantly in favor of changing the way people talk about (and have) sex.

But there's more to this story.

My journey to my current mindset is long and meandering. It has a lot to do with becoming poly and joining a community of sex-positive, equality-seeking folks who place a high value on respect and autonomy.

The more I learned from these people, the more I understood about rape culture, and the more vociferous I became to change it. It's wrong, I believed, the way we blame victims, and shame women who enjoy sex, and teach children all the wrong things about sex.

Then one day, not that long ago, I was struck by a realization: I have been raped.

Twice.

I'll relate each story individually. I am not changing names because the men who raped me are not innocent and I have no desire to protect them.

Several years ago I went on a date with a man I met on a dating site. He told me his name was Ryan. I can't vouch for the veracity of that, but we'll go with it.

Ryan and I started our date at a fantastic local restaurant. We discovered we had a lot in common, including being somewhat addicted to video games. Interestingly, Ryan worked for Blizzard, the company who makes World of Warcraft. He told me about all the amazing, dorky schwag he had at home, provided by Blizzard as incentives or rewards for good work. He offered to show me. I accepted.

We drove, separately, to his apartment, not far away. Inside he showed me a small statue of a dragon he had received for several years of service. He then started kissing me. A lot.

Soon he was trying to undress me. I protested: I didn't really want to. I was on my period. It was late and I needed to get home. I said no pretty much every way there is of saying no.

Ryan didn't listen. He kept kissing me and taking my clothes off, until eventually he was having sex with me.

After he came (I didn't) he asked me to leave.

A few weeks later I went out with another man I met online, KJ. We met at a bar he recommended, which turned out to be loud and crowded. After a couple of drinks, he asked if I'd rather go somewhere else. He offered that his condo complex had a hot tub. That seemed like a good idea. We headed there.

I changed into my swimsuit at his house (I keep one in the car, just in case). We hung out in the hot tub for a while, talking and kissing. I said it was late and I should get going. We went back to his house.

Inside, KJ started kissing me. At first I went along with it. But eventually he was on top of me, his body pinning me down. I said I wanted to leave, probably a dozen times. He acted as though he hadn't heard. He stayed on top of me as he took off my swimsuit. He didn't get up until after he had fucked me. As with Ryan, he was the only one who came. Also as with Ryan, immediately after, he asked me to leave.

I never reported either of these rapes to police. Why? Because it was years later that I realized they were rapes.

At the time, I thought it was bad sex. Miscommunication. Jerky guys. I was never terrified, which is what I thought you're supposed to be when you get raped. I never panicked. I didn't fight or try to run or scream for help. I wasn't really scared. I was annoyed, and insulted, and a bit angry. But not scared. So I didn't think it was rape.

And this is exactly what's wrong with our current culture.

I'm not a stupid person. I got good grades in school. I have a college degree. I work in a challenging field. I can describe to you both the process by which your body breaks down food for energy and just what the hell a dangling participle is.

So why the living fuck did it take me years to understand that men who had sex with me after I repeatedly told them no had raped me?

Rape is awful, certainly. But it isn't always scary. It's very rarely a stranger in a mask. It's not even that commonly someone you dislike. Most of the time, the victim knows and even likes the rapist. Like me. Had I not found my rapists attractive, I would not have been on dates with them. Had I not liked their company, I would not have extended my dates with them.

But my attraction to them, my enjoyment of our dates prior to them raping me, absolutely does not mean that they didn't rape me. I understand that now.

I never once said I wanted to have sex with either of them. In fact, with both, I said no multiple times, in multiple ways. I wasn't frightened of them, but I didn't give consent.

We must change the conversations we have about consent. Consent isn't lack of a fight. It isn't wearing someone down until they give in. It isn't pretending not to understand what "no" means. It isn't threatening someone until they change their mind.

Consent is yes. It is unequivocal, unambiguous, obvious.

And rape isn't just one experience. It doesn't have to be terrifying. It doesn't have to be life-changing. It doesn't have to be violent. It doesn't have to make you hate yourself or anyone else. It doesn't have to make you feel dirty, ugly, or ashamed. It doesn't have to make you ill.

It might do those things, but it might not. It can happen just as easily to men as to women.

Being fucked by someone who didn't listen to your repeated requests not to have sex isn't bad sex. It's rape. Being held down by the body of a person bigger than you so that you can't leave until you give him what he wants isn't bad sex. It's rape.

I was misled. By a culture that focuses more on saying no than saying yes. By a society that paints rapists as evil villains instead of the normal people they are. By media portrayal of rape as a violent, bloody assault involving screaming and kicking and crying.

I get it now, but it took me a long time to get it. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Sex without consent isn't bad sex, it's rape. This shouldn't be a puzzle, but it's surprisingly difficult to recognize unless you've learned specifically how to see it.

Which means it's the responsibility of all of us to teach each other about consent. To stop glamorizing "sexy silence" and emasculating men who ask permission. To ask each other what's okay, and actually listen to the answers. To quit applying labels like "tease" and "bitch" to women who go on dates that don't end in sex, even if there was obvious mutual attraction.

Otherwise, we're all complicit.

The Romeo Rose Trainwreck

Actual photo from Rose's website

By now you've likely seen Romeo Rose's website. If you haven't, go take a look. (It's often under too much traffic to work, so check the mirror if you get an error.)

TL;DR version: this guy apparently sucks at finding his own girlfriends, so he wants to pay you $2500 to find one for him. Bonus $1000 if they get married!

(Let's stop for a moment to snicker about his outrage that a pimp contacted him. Because paying someone to find you a girl? Why would that EVER imply a pimp would be involved?!)

So, we'll leave aside the racist and general douchey stuff because mocking racism is just too easy to really be fun.

What I want to know is this: when did it become okay to sell women?

I realize this isn't trafficking. Far from it. However, what Rose proposes is a financial transaction between himself and another person in which he offers money in exchange for a woman. The woman, presumably, gets only the pleasure (torture?) of being his girlfriend.

I'm gonna go out on a very short limb and suggest that, if a woman were to present herself to him as a dating option, he probably wouldn't pay her the 2500 bucks.

How in the holy hell did he ever decide this was okay?

"Wait," you may be thinking, "sites like eHarmony and Match.com charge fees. How is this different?"

True, some dating sites do charge fees. But both people involved agree to those terms. Matchmaking, in which a neutral third-party acts as a go-between for potential mates, is a fair way to look for a partner.

That's not what's happening here. This is two parties, Rose and Person X, deciding to send a woman with no vested interest in the situation to date Rose. She may not even know what's going on. Nowhere does he stipulate that his dates must know about his site or the transaction.

In fact, he explicitly condemns the idea of someone finding him a girl and splitting the money with her after payment is received. Again, to him, this is prostitution. If only the pimp gets paid though, apparently it's okay. But let's not say "pimp" because that's gross!

The only good thing about this website? Now I know what this guy looks like, so I can be sure to avoid interactions with him.

Consent--No is Less Important than Yes

Photo courtesy of Doug Wheller

Over the past couple of weeks, there has been an internet brouhaha over rape culture and slut-shaming, inspired by Kim Hall's open letter to teenage girls. Many folks have sounded off with incredibly good stuff (like this post from a father to his son, this post showing another mother's reaction, and this post detailing the way another mother handles teenage sexuality). I've posted twice in response: once in direct response, and again regarding what rape culture doesn't look like.

And that brings me to consent. We hear all the time about how "no means no," and it's true, but the fact is, it's rare that anybody says "no." Maybe eventually they do, but things have already gone too far at that point, and the rapist probably already knew that person didn't want to have sex with them.

So let's stop this nonsense rhetoric about "no means no" and start talking about "yes means yes."

This is not a new concept. People who have really awesome sex, especially those who speak or write publicly about it, just can't shut up about enthusiastic consent. Why? Because it's totally clear and unambiguous, and leads to really awesome sex.

The "no means no" line implies that a lack of "no" is the same as consent. If a woman just lies back and takes it, she must be consenting. Never mind that she might be unconscious or afraid to make things stop. Never mind that she might have been threatened, coerced, or otherwise forced into letting things happen. She's not flailing at you with her fists and screaming, so she must have consented.

"Yes means yes" turns this on its head. It means that, if your partner doesn't outright state their desire to have sex with you, you don't have their consent. No more "it wasn't rape because she wasn't awake to say no." No more "it wasn't rape because, after I held her down so she couldn't leave, she let me have sex with her."

People don't say "no" for all kinds of reasons. They don't want to hurt your feelings. They're nervous. They're afraid of what might happen if they turn you down. They're unsure of what they want. Regardless, silence isn't taken for consent in most situations, so why should sex be different?

If you asked your girlfriend, "Do you want a Hawaiian vacation for your birthday?" and she didn't say anything, would you buy plane tickets? If you asked someone at the grocery store, "I only have one item, do you mind if I check out ahead of you?" and they stared determinedly into space, would you cut in front of them? Why is it that "you didn't say no" applies only to sex?

There's some misconception about asking for consent and getting a yes that it somehow makes things less sexy. This, friends, is total bullshit. What could be sexier than whispering in your partner's ear all the things you want to do, and asking if they're ready to do them? Or hearing them tell you exactly how they want to fuck you, then responding enthusiastically? Enthusiastic consent makes sex better, both in that you'll get turned on by your partner's sexy "yes, oh please, yes!" and by knowing what to do to please them. You simply cannot go wrong.

Also remember, you are not asking for permission, you are investigating desire. It's far, far sexier to say, "Do you want me to fuck you now?" than it is to say, "May I fuck you now?" It also opens better communication. Maybe your partner's answer will be, "No, I want you to give me a blowjob, then I want to give you one." Maybe it will be, "I want it, but not just yet, warm me up with your fingers first." Or possibly, "No, baby, let me fuck you." No matter what, you'll know exactly how to proceed, and you won't have killed the mood in the process.

It's important to point out that getting consent never goes away. No matter how long you've been together, no matter if you're married or living together or just had sex a minute ago, you need to get consent every time. Consent for previous sex doesn't count for current sex, and consent for one act doesn't count for another.

So tell me, do you want to have sex with someone who lets you fuck them, or with someone who wants you to fuck them?

Men I Know Who Aren't Rapists

Photo courtesy of Paul Bica

I posted last week about rape culture and how it's buoyed by telling girls to be ashamed of their sexuality and telling boys they can't help themselves when it comes to sex.

Let's talk now about adults. I'm an adult, and I only have sex with adults, and, really, I almost exclusively interact with adults. And all of us grew up hearing the "boys will be boys" and "good girls are virgins" lines. Yet some of us learned to think differently. I want to tell you what can happen when, as a community, we empower all people to control their own bodies and sexualities.

I have been a member of microcommunities that place a high value on autonomy, respect, and responsibility. The principles on which they operate state that each person is solely responsible for their experience of the world. The only way someone can force you to do something is through physical force, coercion, or extortion, all of which are illegal and rightly should be punished. Thus, people in these communities don't believe the myth that girls should be pure or that boys are lustful, uncontrollable animals.

Within these communities, at some events, I have been naked. Sometimes it was for art, or self expression, but mostly it was just because I like being naked. I understand that it may have aroused some people. Hell, sometimes, that was the point. Sometimes, when I was naked, I was also having sex. In front of people. Men, even. Some of whom I didn't even know.

And do you know what? None of them raped me. Not even close. I never even felt as though it was a possibility. Some of these men have seen me like this on multiple occasions, and, far from lusting after me uncontrollably, they treat me with respect and dignity.

I'll give you a second to consider that. I have had hot, wild, animalistic sex in front of men I barely knew and, afterward, they treated me with the respect that should be afforded to all human beings.

I have been a giant slutty slut in all my slutty glory right there where these guys could see it, and it didn't make them think any awful things about my character (that I know of) or treat me as less of a person or violate me in any way.

Sure, some of them may simply not find me attractive. But, based on statistics alone, probably some of them do, and they still have managed to behave as the rational, thinking, empathetic people they are, rather than vagina-seeking missiles with no control over what happens when they get a boner.

They are great guys, and I don't mean to undermine their character in any way, but they are also normal guys. They have jobs and families and like beer and sports and, well, yes, sex. But they don't think that their penises give them excuse to treat other people badly, and they don't see sex as something they are entitled to if they want it. Not because they are great thinkers with amazing self-control. Because they simply learned to think of people as people and not toys.

If this is possible with these totally normal guys, then it's possible with other totally normal guys who aren't part of microcommunities like ours. Clearly, men can be aroused by other people and still not demean, harass, or abuse them. They can see women as desirable yet still also see them as people and treat them with respect and dignity. They can control their sexual urges, and, if they wish to act on them, make sure they get consent first. (More on consent in a later post!)

If they can do this when a woman is having sex right in front of them, they can do this in any circumstance. There is simply nothing at all a woman can do to cause a man to rape her, and anything you've heard to the contrary is untrue.

I know it's possible some of you are reading this and thinking that I am engaging in very dangerous behavior. Some of you think if I get raped I will have had it coming to me. I desperately want to hear from you. Please comment so that we can have a conversation. I want to know why you think these things.

Why This Well-Meaning Christian Mother is a Symptom of Rape Culture

Photo courtesy of Oteo

I recently came across this article, which I'd love for you to take a few minutes to read. In short, a woman who is the mother of several teenage boys gives advice to the girls they are friends with on Facebook: stop posting sexy photos of yourselves or she will block your accounts so her sons can't see them.

This may seem harmless enough. She's protecting her sons, ensuring what's best for them, right?

Wrong. This attitude is representative of rape culture. Let's examine why.

It presupposes the idea of "good girls" and "bad girls." "Good girls" aren't interested in sex. They keep their virginities intact, to one day be given, like gifts, to the men they marry, or at least men with whom they have meaningful, long-term relationships. When they do have sex, they do so to make babies and to please their men, but never because they really like it. If they happen to like it, they keep quiet about that. "Bad girls," however, are casual and nonchalant about sex, throwing away their purity on whoever is close by. They are dirty and full of disease, and nice boys should avoid them at all costs.

The author says, "We think you are lovely and interesting, and usually very smart." But she determines that posing with "the extra-arched back, and the sultry pout" and "not wearing a bra" betray that these girls actually are not lovely, interesting, or smart. In her mind, a girl can only possess these good qualities, qualities that every girl hopes to have, by not being sexual, and not displaying any sexuality.

In reality, none of this is the case. Young women, like young men, discover their sexualities in their teens, typically. As they begin to understand their attraction to other people, they realize that some people are attracted to them. This is a brand new thing for them, and of course they want to experiment with it. They discover how to show off body parts they've only recently grown into: breasts, hips, waists. They play up their facial features with makeup. They learn to flirt, and to be flirted with in response. They find the pleasure we all find in kissing deeply, in fondling, in sexual play. They begin to have orgasms, and consider whether those can come from intercourse.

The second disturbing assumption the post makes is that boys will be boys, and the only thing we can do is to limit their exposure to temptresses. Says the author, "Once a male sees you in a state of undress, he can’t ever un-see it." She asks, "You don’t want the Hall boys to only think of you in this sexual way, do you?"

This woman, who clearly loves her sons dearly, gives them no credit at all for being thinking, reasonable humans. She assumes that their sexual desire is so out of control, so beyond their capacity to manage, that posing for a sexy photo means they can't help but have sex with you.

What kind of message does this send to young people? To this woman's sons? That they can have no control of their sexual behavior? That seeing a girl "in a state of undress" gives boys excuse to objectify her? That once a woman becomes an object of sexual desirability, she loses all value and is thus no longer worthy of being anything but a fuck toy?

Why is it okay for boys to have rampant sex drives that can barely be held in check, but girls are not allowed to want sex? Why is a boy who wants sex just a boy, but a girl who wants sex is a stupid, uninteresting slut?

Further, if a boy has been told his sex drive is beyond his control, and he can't help wanting to have sex with girls in sexy poses, how is he to respond when one of those girls actually wants sex? This assumption gives him no ability to say no. She's naked, he's hard; the only conclusion he can reach is that he must fuck her, even if he actually has reservations.

All of this is pure nonsense, and incredibly harmful. Sexual exploration and discovery is a normal part of being a teenager, for both boys and girls. Both genders think they know far more than they actually do about it, and both tend to make lots of mistakes. Both desperately want to be desired and accepted.

But perpetuating this idea that all boys want sex to the point of having no ability to hold themselves back, while only slutty, unworthy girls want sex, creates the environment in which rape happens. If he's been told he can't help himself, why should he try? How can a young woman not think it was her fault if a boy forces himself on her, if she was so terribly tempting?

We must change the way we talk to young people about sex. More than that, we must change the way we think about sex. Sex is normal, healthy, and the reason all of us exist. It isn't a gift to be hoarded by women and clamored over by men. It isn't a commodity women trade for security and safety. It is a basic activity that is fundamental to human nature, and, like eating and sleeping, we control when and how we do it.

We must expand the conversation from telling girls how to say no. Girls and boys alike should know how to say no, but they should also know how to say yes. They should know how to tell someone what they want and what they aren't comfortable with. They should be able to define their own limits, and respect limits others set.

Most importantly, we must teach them that they are the only ones who control their bodies. No amount of sultry poses can force a boy to have sex with a girl. No lack of clothing can relinquish a girl's right to say no.

Let's change the conversation we have with our kids about sex, and see if we can put an end to tragedies like Steubenville.