Plus and Minus

New year equals new month which equals new magazines at Curves for me to peruse when things are slow. Which they were tonight, on account of it being rainy and icy and generally shitty outside, so I had very few people come in to work out. So I took a cursory look through some of the new magazines to see if there was anything worth commenting on.

First, a pretty decent one-pager in Seventeen about sexting. Specifically dudes texting dick pics. I want to give props to the author, Amber Madison, for being generally an awesome and intelligent person. Also for doing a great job with the following recommendations in the article:

1. Getting a dick pic doesn't mean you're obligated to like it, or compliment the dude on it. ...Don't feel pressured to say you like it.

2. "I showed you mine, now you show me yours!" You're never obligated to show a guy anything...

Second, a completely shitty online article from Women's Health about emotional cheating.

For me, "emotional cheating" is one step beyond the bullshit where you get angry at a significant other for something they've done in a dream you had. It's...slightly more justifiable, but still completely idiotic.

I think it's perfectly fine to feel insecure about things sometimes. Let's say you notice your significant other establishing a connection with somebody else that doesn't exist between the two of you. That's intimidating for sure. The thing I have a problem with is not being able to take time and recognize the connection you and your significant other have, and how it's not "better" or "worse" than that other connection happening, but just different, special, and unique in its own way.

I get a tiny sinky feeling in my stomach every time Frisbee, Now-hubby, or the German even looks at another lady, let alone talks to them or starts establishing some type of relationship. Shit, I'll go the whole "crazy lady" route and admit I get mildly jealous if I meet a guy for the first time, feel some sort of connection with him, and then later on see or find out he's made a similar connection with another lady. It's completely fucking irrational, but I recognize it and can eventually get to point where I don't need to compare what I had with that person to whatever else they have with anybody else.

It seems with "emotional cheating" there's a very, very thin line between what constitutes normal human emotional interaction, and what constitutes infidelity. It might be better to limit interactions outside of the monogamous relationship to the absolute minimum.

Putting Humpty back together again

I spent my New Years Eve being upset at both Now-hubby and Frisbee. For completely separate reasons. I almost stayed home rather than go to Now-hubby's family New Years party, and I spent a good deal of time after midnight crying on the phone with Frisbee.

When I get angry or unhappy I extend a great deal of energy on not letting the emotion out. And a great deal of energy internally being even more angry at myself for even getting angry in the first place. Gotta love cyclical, bullshit emotional stuff.

I've gotten a lot better about not being outwardly violent when I get upset, but there's still some internal violence that happens, and I need varying amounts of time to get through that before I can approach the original feeling and talk about it like a rational adult.

Case in point: This time around it's taken me about an entire week to really feel like things are "better" in any measurable capacity. This time has been spent doing a lot of communication (what those in the poly world might call "processing") with both of the boys. I feel incredibly grateful to have found two people who can handle this crazy, idiosyncratic thing about me and my feelings and love me anyway.

Unconventional Conventionists

Third date two nights ago with podcast guy. It involved him, his wife, and me going to a friend of their's house and watching UFC. The group was around 10 people, and mostly all were open/swingers/poly of some sort. So the night involved UFC watching and adult beverage having, but also lots of consensual hand holding, cuddling, and back rubs.

It's the first time that I've casually been around a group of people who collectively shared a non-typical relationship model. I'm not counting munches, because I feel as though there it's about the common type of sexual activity people like to engage in, and less about commonality as far as how the relationships are structured. Also not counting any of the swinger parties I've been to, as those have seemed more like a random assortment of people getting together who, yeah, all identify in one way or another as "swingers" but really have super varied definitions as to what that means within the context of their relationship.

I'm not saying that I haven't had really good experiences at munches or swinger parties. This was just a new experience to be with a smaller group of people who have clearly been doing the open/poly/swinger thing together for some amount of time. It was super nice to be sitting on the couch and be able to ask the person next to me, "is it okay if I lean up against you?" and have them put their arm up around me as a gesture of consent. Sort of no agenda, low pressure physical affection that I haven't experienced in any other context up until now. It felt super nice and made my heart very warm.

For just having met this group of people, they were incredibly welcoming and awesome. It was a great bolster to the weekend.

Serendipity

My schedule has been fairly frantic recently. Frantic, but awesome. There's only 2 more days of school left before Winter Break. Only one more week 'till Christmas. It seems like every day I'm overbooking myself with stuff to do, and remembering stuff I still need to do that isn't done yet.

I went on a second date with podcasting guy. Pretty meh sushi; pretty awesome conversations in the hot tub with him and his wife afterwards. It's very interesting for me, because outside of the whole "both of us are already married" thing, this is one of the more typical relationships I've ever had. Yes, there were make-outs after the second date. Just with me and him. They were fantastic. What happened on the first date? We went out to dinner and talked for 4 hours. Afterwards I gave him a hug. And not even a warm, wet hug.

Just the normal kind where everybody keeps all their clothes on.

I will, however, be giving plenty of warm, wet hugs in January as I'm heading back to the gang bang parties. It's been...a few months since I've been to one, so it will be neat to head back.

Today, during the carpool, Now-hubby and I were having a discussion with gender roles and relationship stuff in general. As tends to happen with discussions between Now-hubby and myself, it started out innocuously enough. I was telling him about how I overheard two teenage girls explaining the "front wedgie" to a teenage boy. We then expanded that topic through women's gender role and into how relationships are formatted on a gender binary but seem to be changing to a more equatable and fluid idea.

Fates aligned fairly well and I just found this related comic on tumblr:

Convenience

One of my friends from the ol' college days recently posted this article about gender roles in the Hunger Games to Facebook.

Before we get into the meat of this entry, let it be known that I have read the trilogy. I've seen the first movie, am pretty "meh" about seeing the second movie. I thought the story was decent except for the whole "omg what boy will she like" plot line. Although, now that I think about it, it's a pretty decent way to establish the fact that Katniss was basically a "typical" teenage girl except for the whole, "having to kill other people for the entertainment of an insane bureaucracy" thing. So let's say it was an interesting device to establish Katniss as a character, but I still feel like it was too much of a focus in the story overall.

(Christ, I feel like I'm writing a fucking book report. Let's get on with the actual entry, shall we?)

NPR's Linda Holmes wrote a great article about the gender dynamics in The Hunger Games: Catching Fire...

Whoa whoa whoa. Hold the phone. You mean the Linda Holmes? Of NPR?

This feels like a name drop, but it's not really a name drop that's worth anything. It's like two academics getting together and rubbing leathery-patched elbows. "Did you see I mentioned you in my latest analysis?" And then a lot of this happens, back and forth for infinity:

Oh, and if you're interested, you can find the "great article" from the Linda Holmes of NPR here. I put "great" in quotes, because it's one of those pieces where I agree with the general idea being presented, but the way it's actually put together makes me rage face. The tl;dr is that Katniss is the "dude" in her relationship with Peeta, and the "chick" in her relationship with Gale. The problem with presentation is in the way stereotyped gender roles are presented. It's like: woman doing stereotypically woman things equals bad. Man doing stereotypically woman things equals worthy of academic-ish articles on the Internet. They're the same stereotypes, and it's just as shitty to define a man as "feminine" for having said qualities as it is to define women that way. What happens if Katniss is good at archery and baking pie? Does everybody's head explode because it's not possible to contain both aspects of masculinity and femininity in one character? No, then we get to have the argument about whether the pie making helps Katniss be more "relatable" as a "tough girl" that still likes to bake, or if it's some sort of feminist cut-down because women can't have masculine traits unless they're balanced out with feminine ones.

I'm mostly okay with the rest of the original article I linked to. It's an interesting premise, the idea that Katniss could choose both Petta and Gale, and format a relationship that would be incredibly beneficial for her. The only grudge argument I hold onto is this whole idea of who's playing the "woman" and who's playing the "man" in the relationship. It's like that ever-common confusion amongst straight people on how lesbian and/or gay relationships work because, "how do you know which one is the man?"

...we do gender in relationship to other people. It's a conversation or volley in which we're expected to play the part to the way others are doing gender. 

Relationships aren't just a compromise and discussion between two people, they're a specifically gendered compromise and discussion. Does one of you like their steak prepared medium and the other likes it medium rare? You better figure out which meat preparation is more "manly" or your relationship is fucking doomed. 

What if she could be in a relationship with Peeta and get her needs for being understood, nurtured, and protective while also getting her girl on with Gale? In other words, imagine a world without compulsory monogamy where having two or more boyfriends or girlfriends was possible.

Better yet, imagine a world where Katniss didn't have to evaluate her entire life and all the relationships she's forming based on which of the binary gender roles she's encompassing? Interesting side note, availability of multiple partners? Good. Availability of multiple ways of portraying and expressing gender? Bad.

If Katniss wants to keep both Peeta and Gale (no spoilers on what actually happens, peekers), it should be because she fucking wants to. Not because she's got some convoluted need to balance out her "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" sides. The relationship should be respectful and beneficial and Katniss should feel like she's got the ability to grow as a person and express herself freely, regardless of how many partners she chooses or which stereotyped gender activities she feels like partaking in.