On Love in Many Forms

After reading this piece from the "Modern Love" column in the NYT - Romance as friendship - I decided I should try to write my own explanation of how I love. This has been kicking around in my head for a while, but it has taken some effort to articulate my thoughts and feelings on the matter. Saying "I love you" is no light task. If I've said it to you, I've meant it in a profound way and it's not something most people in my life will ever hear. In my first romantic relationship, my boyfriend said those words after a month of dating. Although I'm sure it came off in a bitchy way, I laughed in disbelief and said I couldn't return the sentiment...yet. It took me over a year to do so. Nearly half a lifetime later, I know that my way of loving (and expressing said love) is different from most. Of course today there's a label for every kind of love expression. If we want to get specific, I fall into the category of "demisexual" which seems to cover anything from nearly asexual to stereotypical sexual expression. Generally speaking, demisexual expression of romantic feelings is a slow burn - there's no "love at first sight" or immediate chemistry. The relationship progresses over time and usually meanders through a long friendship before the demisexual can ever truly feel romantic feelings for the object of their interest (I'd say desire, but that seems to not be the case).

Like the author in the article, those who are the closest to me friendship-wise, probably have, at one time or another, been an object of desire to me. Further reading on the "demisexual" way of love brings up the idea that such people are often "confused" about whether someone is a friend or a romantic interest. Well, yes, I guess that might be the case, but this explanation also tries to fit an unconventional way of approaching love into the more conventional box. Such a dismissal of love as confusion also elevates monogamy above other forms of expression - how can you hold romantic love for a friend and a designated erotic partner? Monogamy is the norm due to socialization - there are obviously many benefits to monogamous relationships, and although I am in one, I do not necessarily think they are by any means the natural expression of human desire (nor do I think having multiple partners necessarily is either). The expressions of human sexual desire and love are kaleidoscopic - multi-layered; a complex mix of elements we can never fully tease out to reflect a cut-and-dry explanation. Some expressions are obviously more preferable to others, especially for the stability of society and safety of its members. Although we has made great strides to be more inclusive, there is still room to grow. And I'm sure most people don't think they're wrong regarding their opinion, but I cannot see how, logically, there would be only one form of sexual expression. Naturally (and thus, evolutionarily), adaptation would lead to a spectrum of presentations of sexuality, just as it has led to variations in height, weight, eye, hair and skin color, etc.

What's so funny about peace, love and understanding?

This weekend was an impromptu 4 day one due to 2 snow days in a row at the tail end of the week. While it was nice to be off, on Thursday I noticed that one of my guinea pigs was refusing solid food. This is a bad sign in an animal whose entire purpose in life seems to be to eat and poop. Since I was waaaay snowed in on Thursday, I had to improvise by blending up some veggies and hay pellets and trying to hand-feed her. She was mildly receptive, but not really gobbling it up. On Friday I was able to order special food from Amazon for one day shipping and went and got some baby food to hand-feed with in the interim. The food never arrived on Saturday (and I had to actually call Amazon this morning for a refund). She is on the special food now (I found it at a small, local pet store that I forgot existed until today). I don't know if she will make it through this time - once guinea pigs stop eating solid food, it's kind of a bad sign/sign of the end. 

Vets don't seem to know what to do with these little guys either. The last one I had that needed medical care spent 2 scary nights alone at the vet where they shaved his teeth down (which I don't even think was the problem - they just wanted to charge me $2000) and died as soon as I brought him home (heart attack). So I don't really want to put her through the same stressors so either she will gert better or die naturally at home. 

But after the many trials and tribulations of trying to feed a tiny mammal out of an even tinier syringe, I am tired. But also thoughtful.  I have had 4 rescue guinea pigs and 1 store-bought pig. The store bought one died after a year (so sad). The rescue pigs have been heartier, though I don't know from where they originate. The 2 girls I have now are both around 5 or 6 years old. They are cute and friendly and just kind of hang out all day. There's not too much to interact with as they do not have the intellect of a dog or cat, but they are cuddly. On Friday night, after hand-feeding Twinkie, I sat in front of the heater in my bedroom with her on my lap and just cried. Here I was, on a Friday night, sitting in my robe, on the floor in the bedroom, crying my eyes out over a mammal with the life span of maybe 8 years. But I just couldn't help it. Whenever animals or babies are sick, I become a wreck of a human. I just start weeping for every little life out there. As she sat on my lap, I could hear her heartbeat and I watched as she looked around, but sat contentedly without moving. I thought that maybe I could have done more in the time that I had her - taken her out every single day, given her better treats, just been there to do more. But I can't because I work, and I have to keep on truckin' every day, even if that means not always being able to do what I would really like to do all of the time.

That led me to think about what we prioritize in society. Do we prioritize caring for the pets and the people in our lives? I mean, I think the average person would say they personally do, but I don't think our culture does. In fact, I would argue that our system is set up to do the opposite - move on, buy something new, trudge forward no matter what. The elderly are so quaint, with their reminiscing, but come on grandma, just die already so we can bulldoze your house. I mean, sure it's not as disturbing
as that, but I am sure as you read that line, you smirked a little bit. The past is boring! I teach history - I know what most people think about having to look back, and even worse, learn from it. Gasp.

When I was in a better place yesterday, I read this Atlantic article about stressors and their effect on the unborn fetus. Written by a husband and father, it raised a lot of interesting issues regarding how maternity leave is handled in the US. It seems as though there are two poles - the traditionally conservative view of protecting the fetus (more so than the mother's health) by limiting what the mother can/should do during pregnancy, and the more modern feminist view of a woman having complete equality to men no matter what, including not being labeled as "disabled" during their pregnancy (and thereby not getting any special treatment during those 9 months by their employers). I'm weighing in to say both sides are wrong here. Sure, I might disagree that pregnant women shouldn't be labeled as disabled -it's kind of weird honestly- but maybe a different distinction that disallows their employer from requesting that they continue on as though their condition is completely NOT a hindrance to their expected duties. We have to focus on equity and not absolute equality in cases like these. Otherwise we put undue stress on everyone. If we truly care about women, children, families, traditions, equity in the workplace, gender pay gaps, etc, we need to recognize individuals as unique and that a one-size-fits-all ruling will likely harm many people it was created to help. For example, single mothers or women working part time are less likely to be able to feasibly take much time off before or after their babies are born due to the fact that they might HAVE to work. This may also stress the mother, and subsequently, the baby out, causing a host of health problems for both in the future. Their employment status is not always due to their "inability to work hard" or their education level. There are a lot of good people out there today who are well-educated, qualified and willing to work, but there's nothing out there but a sea of entry level, retail and various part-time jobs.

So I am asking, what can we do to change this course we're currently on as a society - a course that finds every expenditure a chore. Sometimes a society needs to INVEST (which is a nice way of saying, spend some goddamn money) to get returns. If you want to clean up poor neighborhoods and end achievement gaps between the US and other countries, money and time has to be invested into improving public schools, not just constantly poking at them. This would include actually training and hiring quality teachers, ensuring that the school is run well, that funds are used properly, etc. It does not necessarily mean that a new curriculum or testing strategy should be adopted. Sure, Finland is homogenous and has a small population so their methods work for them, blah blah. I have heard all of the criticisms of Finland's schools and why it wouldn't work here. If that's the case, shouldn't Finland take the easy way out and just test the shit out of their kids? I mean, why spend time and energy and money to pay teachers more, have more class options and activities for a cohort of children that could learn easily from drill and kill since there's less diversity to overcome? Well, because the teachers and education community in Finland VALUE what they do by providing students with an enriched environment full of openness, play and personal inquiry. 

And to think, this all started with thoughts about a sick guinea pig. Some days I would just like to turn my brain off. 

Never Fear Love

When I wake up, especially for work, my exact sentiment is a Peter-Steele-Type-O-Negative bass utterance of, "I hate the morning (4:46)."But then I get out of bed, get into the rhythm of the day and think, "Fuck, I'm alive," and just start living the day. I'm frightened by the prospect of death sometimes, but then I realize that I'm living right now - it's the same sort of message as in the first scenario. I don't exactly know when I reached metaphysical awareness of this, although, I suppose it really began to click when I stopped caring if I died in the big picture sense of it.

And I think we get caught in trying to capture or understand the purpose/meaning to life and what we do, but then we can't. The entire journey is just that - one epic journey. It's been said so many times and is such a cliche in and of itself now. That's fine too. We gave meaning meaning in the first place - with the development of symbols (language, concepts, reason). Some people try to apply that to everything to reduce the jagged edges of life from appearing (and there's a time and place for ripping a paper along the perforation but fringies on a damn paper shouldn't bother anyone that much). But everything isn't smooth all of the time, which we have to remember (otherwise we go crazy).

The post-structuralists were all about this. Humans have tried to explain everything - so many of us are insistent on this point. We are seeking a level of perfectionism and understanding over everything.  What a clever gilding! But it, too, is only a gilding - it doesn't last and can be peeled away.

Even the best meaning breaks down in the presence of pure fear, pain or love. So we, as a species, end up controlling our environment so much as to avoid: fearing an unknown, feeling an unabated pain, or experiencing true love for anyone or anything, including life. Here's an example from our society of all three rolled into one - American social norms make women feel as though not being married by 30 is somehow terrible, causing fear and anxiety to rise up. Once a woman is with someone, even someone who treats them poorly, they stay, to avoid pain of being alone and heartbroken. In the end, even for those truly in love, their intense feelings of affection are tamped down by a ritual devoid of any actual experience of individuality and spirituality.

There's a pattern throughout all of these posts - go out and live. Experience. Stop thinking sometimes. It's good for you. Cheesy as this is, once again, never fear love.