acey observations

On being single and poly / nonfenced

Polyamorous-polytactile relationships are my thing in terms of “intimacy”. I may spend a given month involved with multiple partners at similar levels of energy without restricting myself or their behaviour. These relationships are nonfenced and low-maintenance to everyone involved. I recently realized I have not ceased to be the single individual I was before these relationships, contrary to everything that society suggests me.

Being single (a word I hate) is not conflicting with a polyamorous or relationship anarchist “lifestyle”, and I will explain how that strikes me.

Most often, the word “single” infers a sense of lacking, restricting, and dependence. Connection, love, touch, drive, and presence become a commodity subjected to the realities of historical materialism. I admit I feel a lack of some skills and knowledge, even some emotions in my life. The question is: who doesn’t? With a partner or with several partners, you will encounter and deal with some characteristics that are lacking in yourself. The characteristics will however never be yours even then. In the present (Western) search for unity of the self, we are not allowed to be satisfied with being incongruent or dependent on society (which we still are thanks to the Neolithic revolution and division of labor). 

To exist, the word “single” requires its antipode, a monogamous relationship on the relationship escalator. These essentialist (sometimes coupled with amatonormative, sex-normative, cisnormative, ableist, racist) notions of monogamous relationship as a norm, needless to accentuate, constitute a false coding that society tells us to perform in our daily lives.

If we want to live life to the full, we should seek out meaningful and complementary relationships to other humans, according to the rule. In this quest for fulfillment, different types of relationships are graded in terms of how well do they accomplish the goal.

Personalities tend to complement each other. But not in the way society or hypothetical and incomplete theories such as MBTI or socionics might mislead us. Friendships will bring new perspectives into our lives, as will more “intimate” relationships. This complementing relies on the time and shared activities with the person, not as much on the type of relationship we have with the person. If we deem that person more advantageous to us in some way, we tend to value the activities from that person higher. This is the basis for nonmonogamous arrangements of human relationships. One has to know what one is lacking and in need of, after removing all ingrained bias. Only then can relationships be tailored to match our needs. Seldom are these relationships conventional. In these cases, you feel not quite complete. You feel every person in your life can share something with you, “intimate” or otherwise once the barriers are removed. You acknowledge that you are essentially alone in this world and no structure can fade that fact from your mind. Likewise, you understand that being a single alone being is not a fact that can or should be changed. If you also feel lonely besides being alone, there are many cures to repel that feeling when needed.

There is no way in which another human could fully complement you as a human. You will never become a whole being, a “being of enough value”. That’s not what we are - instead, we are incomplete and only somewhat passing to the current society in which we live.

Racism, sexism, genderism

Racism (noun)
1) a human individual’s or an automaton’s belief in the existence of perceivable racial traits in humans that can divide humanity into distinct races. The typical racial traits mentioned are skin color, facial features, body build, speaking voice, genitals, genetics, and the haplogroup. Some of these traits can be seen, some merely supposed, some can be measured, and some can be faked.
2) the belief that aforementioned racial traits should be used discriminatorily or violently against individuals in a complex hierarchical manner. Those who define themselves or are defined as black or with recent African heritage should be inferior to everyone else, and people with light skin color should prevail. Further hierarchical distinctions would exist within each racialized group.

Genderism relies on reduction and ignorance in terms of gender expression and gender identity, both of which were created and imposed by genderism itself. Genderism manifests through discrimination and violence against people and traits considered not clearly fitting to one side of a gender binary, the construction of which varies slightly across cultures.

Sexism relies on individual or automated recognition or supposition of binary gendered traits in a live person or, if the person is absent, in that person’s output. Sexist people typically consider the people they deem to be women as less worthy than those deemed men, and view non-binary people as non-existent or inferior to people of binary gender. These mindsets of the individual manifest themselves as discrimination and violence against certain gendered traits. Sexism is the best-known subtype of genderism and has ties to male supremacy movements.

Terminology terminal

gay = homoromantic / homosexual when people express within the gender binary

bi = biromantic / bisexual when people express within the gender binary

straight = heteroromantic / heterosexual when people express within the gender binary (although you hardly use this if you aren’t this in both rom and sexual sense)

pan =  panromantic / pansexual, no conditions

ace = asexual, no conditions

aro = aromantic, no conditions

(not delving into other orientations here)

The distinction between ace and aro is successful because any confusion can arise by only an ignorant person interpreting the two as the same. Whereas the words gay and bi tend to erase aromantic cis people and cis people of mixed orientations, and both speakers may accidentally conflate the terms in their heads so the correct meaning doesn’t come accross.

And, in general, why not utilize gyno- or andro- terms (if attracted to binaries) so that people don’t have to presume anything about your own gender expression or cis-genderedness.

For example, you would have to say “gay asexual” to mean homoromantic asexual, or “gay aro” for aromantic homosexual. The meaning of “gay” in these terms is different. Also, the word lesbian as a subclass of gay just perpetuates patriarchal norms.

This dominance of binary gender over sexual orientation over romantic orientation is disgusting.

Shouldn’t a god be non-binary gendered?

The following rant is about the male-centric god found in Christianity.

A. They indeed is non-binary.

- people on Earth have misinterpreted Their gender expression - if They was ever seen in the first place

- it’s no use having a rigid gender expression in a place where there’s never been anybody else and never will. At least until they open the celestial gate for the rescued ones after Harmageddon.

- no further questions

B. They indeed is non-binary, and yet They presents as male.

- just to do a favor to some bigots on Earth and perpetuate a human society where masculinity is the sublime and hierarchical topmost norm, supported by this religion.

- to get more sex and/or romance in a realm that actually has nobody else so that They can wish to split into more than three personalities again.

- in order to sport a fancy beard which They just created for another celestial fashion cycle of 10000 years. Those people on Earth that are and were able to depict Their beard simply got confused as to Their gender.

C. No, he is and has been a male god.

 - in which way is he male and identifying that way? 

1) does he have a penis? (not that these are obligatory btw)

2) does he dress in a masculine way (if he has to dress at all)?

3) does he have DNA or similar and does it contain a male component instead of a female or non-binary one?

- he just happens to be male, not because of our patriarchic system. He is asexual aromantic so he won’t have problems with not being attracted to other gods, of which there of course are none in that realm he lives in.

- he just happens to be male, not because of our patriarchic system. He is allosexual or fluctuating in order to get more sex in a realm that again actually has nobody else, so that he could split into more than three personalities.

Why gender expression got invented

Let us think that the average person conceives one child (perhaps two) during their life. Gender coded expression helps that person to choose another person of any sexual-romantic orientation who has matching genitals for copulation. That won’t still guarantee success. If they would just ask directly and everybody would agree they would get theoretical matches about 49% of the time. Not all people have functioning genitals or can produce children biologically, either.

To put it bluntly, gender expression will be useful to people in aiming just for those 5 sexual minutes of their entire lives, or even less.

Please get rid of these words

Society, that means you people, please get rid of these words

normal (when addressing a person)

traditional

experimental

women’s clothes / men’s clothes *

gender reassignment surgery **

promiscuity

slut / stud

black people / brown people / white people ***

race, ethnicity

exotic

… and many other words that will continue to exist but hopefully become even more ridiculous and devoid of meaning.

* clothes are peoples’ clothes, they only relate to their owner, not an idealised (normative) person who might own them.

** a surgery on the genitalia is not always necessary and does not change a person’s gender. Except for some transphobic legislations. One’s gender is defined by each individual independently.

*** nobody really has a black or white skin, those terms are exaggerations. And, discrimination also happens based on facial features that can appear for instance clearly African on African-Europeans whose skin color is not dark at all.

A fleeting remark on gender

Today, I suddenly came to the bewildering conclusion that you can never really have the same gender as the person sitting next to you.

Remember, gender is determined by:

your genital formation, whether or not you reveal them or speak about them (or, the lack of genitalia)

your genetic design (at least in the medical sense, even though your DNA would never become known to anyone)

your (un)gendered appearance, or gender expression, as cruelly determined by the people around you, using all the cultural markers, a sometimes burdensome heritage. Thus, gender is a performance for a public made of fellow humans.*

and, most importantly, your gender identity, which doesn’t have to be binary or lie neatly on a spectrum.

Because of the appearance factor, different choice of clothing, makeup, accessories, etc. we all make for a different narrative, or a different play altogether. We can still fit on the same stage. The audience are as many as are the performers. The performers are the audience.

Secondary markers for gender include your speaking voice, but fellow humans can readily be tricked about this as long as the visual package conforms to one of their ingrained binary norms.
Reminder: sexual orientation plays no direct role in gender whatsoever. None of these take place in your heart either, it’s mostly about how your brains are wired and functioning. There are people arguing for such a finer division as gender orientation while you might actually as well mean gender identity. Gender is not an active component in the same way that allosexual orientations are - it does not orientate or search for its missing part. Nevertheless, you can allow your gender identity the place of a great expressive component in yourself. Along the lines of some remarkable recent opinions, one should not even use the phrase “I identify as…” instead of just demanding “I am….”.

Although it could seem otherwise, no performer luckily is playing a play by the same playwright as the next.

* any gendered appearance, when not part of such a performance, is autogynephilia or autoandrophilia (both of which terms might have a problematic background). Not only trans people can have that so called “condition” or “illness” but cis people can as well. That’s what a lot of autosexual practice (masturbation / solo sex) could actually be based on.

Gross generalizations

Percentages of people who are regularly sexually attracted (or, at least more attracted than unattracted) to

55% to all or some women of any orientation*
56% to all or some men of any orientation*
…and may lose that attraction the object of attraction didn’t actually have the desired genitals (i.e. perceived women not being people-with-vaginas and men not being people-with-penises)

< 1% to people of an other gender presentation

1% none of the above

* = androsexual orientations are slightly more prevalent in cis-men than gynosexual orientations are in cis-women.

Note: Approximately the same number of people with vaginas as people with penises live on this planet.

Allosexual people especially are interested in other peoples’ genitals but they had a hard time asking for what they want to know, so they developed cis-heteronormativity and are mostly responsible for imposing gender representation.

These numbers from the top of my head are made of at least homosexuals, gynosexuals, androsexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals, pansexuals, asexuals, etc. Apart from the heterosexuals, many of these people are closeted, questioning, or simply avoid labeling themselves. The cis/trans divide doesn’t make a difference for the person feeling the attraction, only in case of possible reciprocation.

Something along those lines and numbers also applies to the (a)romantic spectrum, but less research has been made.

I guess one of the points of this post was to show that not everything sums up to a neat 100% whole and one thing doesn’t necessarily have a negative impact on the other.

See also this awesome summarizing pic:
http://instagram.com/p/xoVLJNDfOu/