Category Archives: Marriage

I’m All Yours

Posted on by

Last night I saw “I’m All Yours,” one of the films at this year’s Portland International Film Festival. For some reason, my friend and I thought it was a comedy (which is partly why we chose it)- but it wasn’t. So instead of having a piece of light-hearted and fluffy entertainment, I received something deeper to reflect on.

Here is the synopsis from the PIFF website:

**

I AM YOURS

DIRECTOR: Iram Haq – NORWAY

Mina is a young single mother living in Oslo with her six-year-old son Felix. A Norwegian-Pakistani, she has a troublesome relationship with her family, who blame her for her divorce. Understandably: she’s a natural flirt, and while she has plenty of male companions, they tend not to hang around for long. One day, Mina meets Jesper, a Swedish film director, and they fall head over heels in love, but boy and man don’t exactly see eye to eye…. “I wanted to make a very naked and true story…. Often we see female characters being as good a person as possible. Mina is a normal human being, always running after being loved but not knowing what love is.”—Iram Haq. This year’s Norwegian submission for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar.

**

The movie opens with Mina masturbating to porn- I already knew I was going to like her. And from there on out, we see that she accepts and welcomes her sexuality. Although her family is a traditionally hierarchical and patriarchal Indian family, she has somehow managed to divorce a husband (seemingly because she flirted too much with other men) and keep up with various lovers. I appreciated witnessing a character that has unbridled lust, a complex sense of what it means to be a parent, and a complicated way of interacting with her son, parents, and lovers.

The film illustrates the control her family seeks to have over her and her sexuality perfectly- it is unflinching and suffocating.

As I watched Mina run from lover to lover, I was struck by the title of the movie- “I’m All Yours.” That seems to capture Mina’s approach to relationships and love- handing all of herself over to whatever romantic partner is in front of her. But that leaves her with none of herself to tend to. Even the modeling from her family around parental-child relationships and love show that parents do not love and accept their children unconditionally, a pattern that she does not exactly emulate although she does end up physically abandoning her own child. I kept rooting for her silently: You are all yours! Through her parents trying to control her life and her relationships, her ex husband pressuring her to behave in different ways as a parent, and her various lovers manipulating and using her in ways that suit only them, I watched her hand over herself to the people in her intimate life and then silently move through her days. The movie ends quietly, with her alone. I was left wishing that she finds herself, collects all of the pieces of herself she has given away unknowingly, and reclaims her sense of identity.

I think the movie shows the rub between different value systems: interdependence and familial obligation, individualism, sexuality as freedom, sexuality as sin. If you have a chance or ability to see the film for yourself, I recommend it.

Equality & Sex

Posted on by

J sent me this article, and I’ve seen it posted in other places as well; it’s worth a read: “Does a More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex?”

It’s an interesting proposition, and seemingly substantiated by well-known researchers in the areas of marriage, sexuality, and attraction: relationships marked by sameness and a high degree of intimacy are also marked by less heat. Thus, they tend to be marked by less sex.

The question that I still have after reading this article, though, is: Even if equality between two partners is correlated with less sex in the relationship, shouldn’t we be looking at other factors that lead to less sex?

My fear with this article, is that it will lead readers to say “equality causes less sex” (the correlation versus causation problem), rather than diving into the other factors that mark modern long-term relationships: sameness, intimacy, and an expectation that a partner meets 100% of our needs and vice versa. These factors seem to be the real erotic/passion “killers,” not equality.

Perhaps it is not men engaging in “feminine” housework that leads to a decrease in how much sex they have with their female partners, but the structure of the relationship which requires each partner to do everything for one another, as opposed to relying on other people in their social network. Modern LTRs are founded on the idea that one person will complete you and fulfill all of your needs, desires, and wants- they will be your best friend, motivator, spiritual coach, workout buddy, financial advisor, mechanic, and a sexual ATM (and perhaps a co-parent or business partner and more). Putting that kind of pressure on yourself and your partner is destined to kill some erotic energy- talk about stress and stretching your attention and focus, not to mention gluing yourselves together. Space seems invaluable in retaining the individuality and separateness necessary in order to still want one another.

The closing quote from Esther Perel is pertinent to this:

““It’s the first time in history we are trying this experiment of a sexuality that’s rooted in equality and that lasts for decades,” Esther Perel said. “It’s a tall order for one person to be your partner in Management Inc., your best friend and passionate lover. There’s a certain part of you that with this partner will not be fulfilled. You deal with that loss. It’s a paradox to be lived with, not solved.””

Except I would say that we can at least brainstorm around this paradox. I think ethical nonmonogamy does quite a bit to transform this paradox of LTRs into more of a continuum, in which you can choose a structure that matches the pros and cons you want out of a relationship: how much intimacy and closeness and eroticism and heat do I want in my relationship, and how am I going to go about getting those things? Will we live together? Have separate bedrooms? Share details about every minute of our days? Invite other people into our bedroom? Date other people? Travel and vacation separately?

What do you think?

This is another piece worth reading: “No Sex, Please, We’re on Medicare” Don’t fall into ageist baloney about older people not needing, desiring, or deserving sex, and heed one of the last lines: “Sexual health is part of health.” No, duh.

Lust & Marriage

Posted on by

I had the privilege of witnessing this fabulous production, “Lust & Marriage.” A good friend recommended I attend, and I am so glad that I did. I would even go back next weekend to see it again.

I felt like this woman practically wrote my story (minus Burning Man and taking ecstasy and other drugs). She pulled out so many recognizable names and concepts, so many familiar emotions and experiences. (Dan Savage, Sex at Dawn, Mating in Captivity, The Giving Tree)

I was sitting there, front row, and in the first 20 minutes, I thought:

If only I had this play to watch when I was in high school.

What lessons I would have gained when I was younger, what connections I would have made, what connections would have become less entrenched.

We need metaphors and art and expression like this. We need it desperately. It’s one thing for me to sit here on my couch and blog about how I feel and think and what I want and need. Verbal processing only gets me so far. I also need to the non-verbal: the drawing, the dancing, and the watching. Watching someone else tell a story in such a beautiful and genuine way. It almost made me cry on the way home.

Go see it, and if you can’t, stay on the lookout for future productions!

Value of Relationships

Posted on by

It was 11:42pm (or something like that) on Christmas Eve when I saw my best friend from high school calling; she had already called once and left a message I hadn’t yet listened to. I’m tired, I need to go brush my teeth, I thought and was about to let her go to my voicemail again. Rapidly, I realized why she must be calling: They got engaged. My intuition turned out to be correct.

My BFF and her BF have been together since high school and haven’t dated hardly at all outside of dating each other (that’s something like 8 years I think, with a couple of short breaks during college). And now, they are getting married. They both have huge families, and I imagine their wedding will be fairly big. Their engagement photos have been on Facebook, and many people have shown them support and love. I am sure the encouragement will continue for the rest of their relationship.

Last week, I had the privilege of witnessing my cousin and her girlfriend get married. While they have known each other for about a year (I think!), they have dated for about 4-5 months. Her family has been extremely un-supportive, and while it could be amplified by the brevity of their relationship, the lack of support is more due to the fact that it’s a same sex relationship. My cousin has a much smaller online social network, giving the appearance that, in comparison to my friend, her relationship is far less supported by those in her community. Her celebration was small (there were about 16 of us in attendance), but mighty in spirit.

LongingLoveSS-Post

These two relationships couldn’t be more different in how they appear and how the two individuals came to know one another and how the two decided to get married.

What do they have in common and do they have the same value? Who decides?

For all that other people like to talk and gossip about others’ relationships, isn’t up to those actually in the relationships to determine their worth and value? No one knows better about what relationships are important to them and why and how they want to display them and celebrate them.

Love is love. And we should all encourage, support, and validate LOVE.

Happy Marriage

Posted on by

I wore a white sweater and a white hat. He wore his blue shirt, although you wouldn’t know it since he was wearing his big down jacket over it (we stood outside in 32 degree weather in front of a half-frozen water fountain while the judge performed the ceremony).

After 8 minutes and 7 signatures (we had four amazing witnesses- some of our best friends), it was done. Sealed it with a kiss.

We’re legal.

Yay to lower car insurance and taxes! :)

PS: I love you, J.

PPS: THANK YOU to our amazing friends who were with us in person and in spirit, who continue to support us as individuals and as a couple in our life together.

dancing

Taking Names

Posted on by

This is a sweet and thought-provoking article from a man who took his wife’s last name:

I Took My Wife’s Last Name

I appreciate this man’s stance toward making the personal political, and yet remaining true to what he simply wanted: marking the creation of his new family.

J and I were filling out our marriage license tonight (we’re getting closer! we got our prenup notarized today, too!) and trying to decide what we want to do with our names.

I have been sure that I would keep my last name- it’s too good to erase. And I am also adamant that I am not being transferred as property from my father to my husband. But what about taking J’s last name as a middle name? I already have two (one that my parents gave me as a “regular” middle name, the other that my mom wanted to give both my sister and I as a second middle name to commemorate her side of the family. It’s not technically her maiden name, as her stepfather had adopted her when she was young, but is her original last name), and I don’t want three middle names. Do I give up one of my middle names? Which one? I love my first middle name; it’s become a nickname of mine. I also appreciate my second name as it has preserved my mom’s narrative of her strength and perseverance of getting through a tough childhood.

J and I could create a hyphenated last name. But that gets long and arduous for ourselves and others. And like the author in the article, we don’t want to create a law firm. We want to simply mark the creation of our family.

It’s not an automatic option to take one another’s last names as a middle name, but it sounds like it is an option; it simply needs to be approved by court before our names are official. But we are considering it. So I could drop my second middle name and adopt J’s last name as my second middle name. He could drop his middle name and take my last name as his middle name.

Slightly complicated, and expensive to do. Changing our names would require trips to the DMV. And money.

It feels worth it, but also a little annoying.

Regardless, here is to our little fam :)

Sexuality Critical Genogram

Posted on by

A major tool used in my counseling program is the genogram, which is basically a family tree. It is typically used during the first few sessions to diagram a client’s family (which could be an individual, couple, or family) back at least three generations. The point is to help clients see intergenerational patterns. They’re pretty cool.

In class this week, we talked about the critical genogram, which is a genogram that also depicts a client’s particular social location (related to gender, sexual orientation, class, race, ability, age, religion, etc.) and how larger systems (like patriarchy, racism, etc.),  have influenced the client’s experience of their social location and presenting problems.

So I decided to draw one depicting my perception of how larger systems of patriarchy, monogamy, and religion have influenced my experience of my relational orientation, gender identity, and sexual orientation. The main messages I have received from those larger systems include “Women are possessions, property, need to be owned, controlled, and contained,” “Sexuality is sinful, immoral, unhealthy, wrong, bad,” and “Female sexuality is especially sinful, immoral, unhealthy, wrong, bad.” While I have largely cut myself off from those larger systems, I am still influenced by them because of my relationships with my family, larger community, and the messages I receive from media. I experience relatively integrated relationships with my relational and sexual orientations (I feel really comfortable identifying as queer and having an open/poly relationship), but my relationship with my gender identity (woman) feels more complicated. Because I can’t completely separate stripping from patriarchy, my identity as a woman and my enjoyment and participation in the strip club culture feels complicated and richly complex.

I am excited thinking about constructing genograms with my future clients, especially sexuality genograms, which involves questions about sexual history, familial messages about sex and love, and experiences in current romantic relationships. I’m also really excited thinking about creating a way to construct and use a genogram for poly folks and families.

Here is my sexuality critical genogram :) I’m the pink circle.

Screen shot 2013-11-21 at 9.22.47 PM

Contagious Love

Posted on by

I was meeting my lawyer today to finalize our prenup… we were sitting in the Starbucks a half mile away from my apartment. Nearby, two twenty-something people sat across  a small table from one another, clasping each other’s hands, beaming at each other. Clearly enjoying one another, in love perhaps.

I smiled to myself as my lawyer explained what legal rights I was waiving by agreeing to this prenuptial agreement. I can’t claim spousal support or all of J’s belongings if he dies without a will naming me as a his heir, yadda yadda. (I know: J and I wrote this together).

Hawaii legalized gay marriage today, I remembered, smiling some more.

I kept glancing at that couple. Their energy was contagious, and it made me feel in love. Even more so than I already felt, receiving legal counsel on a document that will help J and I move forward with our legal arrangement, an offshoot of our committed and loving relationship.

It was a lovely morning.

New Horizons Adult Social Club

Posted on by

J and I are in Seattle this weekend for many reasons (one big one is to meet our close sexy friends’ lovers!!!), but we just had to check out the main swingers’ club up here while we were here.

While Sesso in Portland has the traditional night club feel and the Velvet Rope is like your neighborhood bar, New Horizons acts like something in between. A massive house situated on massive grounds means there is a huge amount of space to socialize. The play areas are a relatively small portion of the house, but are reminiscent of the “cool” forts I tried to build when I was little. There are many levels and bunk beds and beds you have to bend down and crawl onto, beds sunken down into the floor. There is a room with fun house mirrors on all sides and the ceiling. A room with a black light and glory holes.

Pluses for this place:

-You are not allowed to wear street clothes in the play areas. We thought this probably makes the transition from socializing to playing more smooth. J also commented that sometimes it is weird to be playing at Sesso with people wearing nice/club-y clothes watching.

-You can be barefoot anywhere. No more sore feet!! So nice.

-You are able to spend the night and stay til the morning, when they serve another hot breakfast (the first is at midnight). This is included in your door fee.

-The dinner party atmosphere sounds neat, as opposed to a raucous night club or dive-y bar.

-The long orientation really helped to build potential new members’ sense of community, self-monitoring, and accountability to rules.

Minuses:

-You must rent towels to use on top of play surfaces (beds, couches, etc.). Staff does not change the sheets or spray down surfaces for members.

-It’s a smaller group of people that utilize the space (on average Saturdays attendance is between 125-150 people. On big parties it can get up to 500).

-The staff here, like at the Velvet Rope, did not specify what the exact rules were for using the hot tubs (and we forgot to ask).

My favorite aspect of this club? Its history.

It is the longest running swingers club. We got to meet one of the founding members, Norbert (his wife, Lorna, passed away not too long ago). The wife directed the club’s founding principle: that it was to be a safe space for women, especially single and solo women. Apparently she was disillusioned with the swinger movement during the 60s and 70s and the traditional key parties in which women were not given much agency in saying “no” to a prospective partner. So she was adamant that this new club be founded on the ability to say “no.” Pretty awesome. Norbert was pretty rad (and he’s almost 83!).

Among the small crowd that was there last night, we were definitely the youngest there (not a new experience). It was also like Sesso, in that the vibe was very straight-couple oriented (during the Speed Dating activity we participated in, men met with women. Men did not meet men and women did not meet women), and there was a lot of couple and marriage privilege: the primary dyad is sacred. In fact, while J and I were sitting in the hot tub, a woman asked if she could put her feet in, and we both said that it was fine. When she realized he and I were together, she was aghast that she “split us up”- by mere inches, mind you. And was adamant that she switch me spots: “We share, we don’t split up couples!” she said. The entire 90 minute orientation and the brief meeting with the founder and his second wife was centered around the importance of communication between the dyad. True, communication between couples is essential to having happy and fun swinging experiences. But I get kind of irked when all we hear about are couples (again though, swinging is very couples-oriented).

And while it is cool that the foundation of this club was built on women’s safety and right to say no, the fact that men are given less ownership over their sexuality and assumed to be treacherous bugs the shit out of me. Women can be just as lecherous. And, while we were at the club last night, I listened to explicit conversation among members that the “double standard” for men and women’s behavior was a-okay. Women can touch men without asking, but vice versa will get the dude kicked out.

I’m glad we checked it out, and I think we’ll probably build the club into our next visit, especially since we can stay the night there. Score! :)

Who Is Marriage For?

Posted on by

This post has been all over the place. I am grateful for this response that was published, although it doesn’t capture my feelings and thoughts.

Who is marriage for? Is it for you? For you partner? For your future family? What if you don’t want to raise children?

“Getting married” is, to me, a distinct issue from being in a long-term, committed relationship. When we talk about the actual act of “getting married” we are talking about a legal and financial agreement. However, I am aware that in the popular lexicon, “getting married” means making the final, absolute decision to remain with one partner f-o-r-e-v-e-r. No wonder Seth and pcrowling were freaked out before they had their respective weddings: committing (monogamously) to one person for the rest of your life is a freaky decision.

Being in a relationship, of any flavor, should be a balance between your needs and desires and personality and those of your partner. That being said, people are entitled to make certain sacrifices if that is how they feel they should ethically operate within a relationship (Seth, for example, found solace in thinking about getting married for his wife and future family). My big caveat is: as long as those who are sacrificing are intentional about their decisions and don’t blame their partners for the sacrifices they have made. (Don’t be a martyr!)

It just so happens that my latest DatingAdvice post went live today: Can You Have Marriage & Kids in an Open Relationship? Here is a snippet; be sure to go read it!:

“How does marriage fit with an open relationship? What about having kids? Do I want those things?

Legal marriage is, to me, just that: a legal document dictating a financial agreement with a partner.

Therefore, getting legally married is a financial arrangement and agreement and can overlap with any relationship structure, given it is between two people (and in many states still, two straight people).

Legal marriage is not allowed between more than two people in any states.

This part is less important in my relationship.

While we both see the practical benefits of getting legally married (and so we probably will soon), it is less important than being clear on our other relationship agreements and maintaining transparency, trust, communication and commitment to one another.

We know many people who are married and have open relationships, and their reasons for getting married ranged from the practical, financial and legal benefits, to the practicalities of raising children together, to the symbol of being in a long-term and loving relationship.”