Regrets, I've Had a--Not So Many, Actually

This blog post is dedicated to Joan Nestle, co-founder of the Lesbian Herstory Archives, and author of, among other things, the essay My Mother Liked to Fuck.

Sometimes, I realize that I have been wrong about myself. The recent example I keep going on about is that, until I started growing my hair last year after keeping it buzzed close to my scalp for several years, I had no idea I had curly hair. I knew I had curls at the nape of my neck, and I knew that if my hair got to a certain length it would swoop out into unattractive "wings" over my ears, but somehow I had no idea that my hair was curly all over. This is because my curls are fragile. Comb or brush them, and they stretch right out.

I don't know what inspired me, when my hair started growing in, to try a Curly Girl/no shampoo care regimen on it, but I did, and the result is curls. This isn't always a good thing--I get pretty Medusa-headed when I need a haircut, as I do right now--but overall I like it, and I am always pointing at my head and saying in wonder, "I have curly hair! Who knew?"

I was 46 years old when I figured out that I had curly hair. That shows a shocking lack of self-awareness.

But I was 47 when I figured out that I had been lying to myself and everyone else for 20 years.

You see, I had a lot of sex when I was young. Exactly how much sex depends on how you define it. I was an active and enthusiastic "everything but" girl starting at the age of 13 or 14. In the 9 months after I had PIV sex for the first time, I slept with five men, and there were at least two more I had sexual relationships with and probably would have had PIV sex with if anybody'd had a condom in their pocket.

Then I fell in love with another woman, and came out as a lesbian. We were together for over two years, and were monogamous during that time. In the year after we broke up, I had four lovers. The last one left me feeling a little rattled, so I decided to take a break from sex with other people, and it was at least a year before I dated anyone again.

[Side note: my experiences during that year taught me that some women can be just as unwilling as some men to believe you when you say you're not going to have sex with them. But that is maybe for another post.]

You don't need to hear every detail, so let me sum up. In the five years between when my first lover and I broke up, and when I got together with Raider, I was sexually active for three, maybe three-and-a-half, years, and had ten lovers.

It didn't really seem like all that many people at the time, so I was surprised when I saw the results of a study that showed that I'd had more sexual partners than something like 90% of American women. I don't know where that specific study is, but you can find some stats at the Kinsey Institute website, if you're interested.

Reading that study reminded me of a scene in the TV show Roseanne, in which Jackie stops to think for a minute and realizes that, if she's had about three lovers a year since she was 18, that means she's slept with 60 men.

Thanks to the wonders of the internet, I was able to find the episode! I wasn't able to manage the time stamp on my iPad, but if you scrub to 7 minutes, 26 seconds, you can see the very scene, which is even funnier than I remembered. Jackie's face when she does the math is much like mine when I saw that study. If you'd asked me, "Would you say you've slept with more people than the average American woman, fewer people, or about the same?" I'd have guessed I was about average. Maybe on the high side of average.

Instead, I was apparently a slut.

For the last twenty years, I have said things like this about all that sex and all those people:

"There are people I regret sleeping with."

"I slept with too many people. I wouldn't want my kids to sleep with as many people as I did."

"I learned about sex and relationships through trial-and-error, and it was hard and bad."

Here is what I've realized, though: None of these things is true.

There is not actually one person I regret sleeping with. I had some bad sex, sure (Ron, I'm looking at you! I hope for the sake of your other partners that you eventually figured out that the duration of the sex act is not the only measure of quality). I also had some very good sex with some very bad people--including one woman who I halfway expect to someday get to Step 9 in AA and give me a call. I had some terrific sex with people it wasn't worth being in a relationship with, like this bartender named Ian, whom I met when I showed up in Ann Arbor for my orientation at UMich and spent the rest of the day and night with. Skipping my entire college orientation in favor of playing with Ian's kitten, eating sweet things in his bed while listening to music, and having a lot of sex is probably one of the most rebellious things I've ever done, and it was great.

On further inspection, he turned out to be kind of a jerk, and although I saw him once or twice, we never went on a date or slept together again. But we had a truly lovely relationship that lasted a little under 24 hours. I have often used my one-night stand with Ian as an example of why you should get to know people before you sleep with them, but in fact I am glad that I slept with him before I got to know him. Because that 24 hours was wonderful, and it was apparently the best he had to offer.

Here's the thing: I think that I have been unable to shake free of a certain story about sex: that it's something other people want from you, and you should only give it to them if they've proven themselves worthy. And that it's only OK if it happens in the context of a relationship, or at least leads to one. Hence my attempt to convince myself and others that sleeping with Ian was a mistake. We hear a lot that, while sex is a good thing, it's only good in moderation and with the right people, and I have often acted as if I believe that, too. But I don't. I believe that sex can also be good in excess, and even, occasionally, with the wrong people.

It's a fascinating glimpse into my own mind that I have held to, and expressed, ideas I don't believe to be true. It reminds me of the years when I identified as a lesbian, and the mental gymnastics I did to explain away my attractions to men. It has to do, I think, with being acceptable to the people I want to be accepted by. I didn't want my lesbian community to turn me out, so I pretended, even to myself, that I wasn't regularly having crushes on men. Similarly, I copped to all that sex with all those people but only in the context of disavowing (at least some of) it, because I didn't want people whose opinion I respected and whose friendships mattered to me to reject me. Or because I didn't realize how much I'd bought into that narrative. How much I still believed that such a thing as a slut existed, and that it was bad to be one.

I have been wrestling with this post for much longer than it usually takes me to crank one out. I'm not sure I'm saying what I want to say. And I can imagine people wondering why I feel the need to say it at all. Maybe I'll finish with an FAQ:

So, I did the math, and it sounds like you slept with maybe 20 people or so altogether. That doesn't sound like so many.

Yeah, it didn't seem like all that many to me, either, until I read that study.

I get that you like to talk about sex, but did you really have to include numbers?

Yes, I did. Because if we're going to talk about it at all, I think it makes sense to be clear about what exactly I mean.

Why are we talking about it?

My oldest kid is within a stone's throw of the age I was the first time I kissed someone. The first time someone put his hand between my legs. The first time I touched a penis. It gets me thinking about what I want my kids to know about sex, and how I want them to find it out. It gets me thinking about what I knew and didn't know, and how I found it out, what messages I was given, the way we are still, shockingly in our sex-obsessed culture, so quiet about how much sex we have and with who and how and why.

Also, it's just my way. I think about things, and when I think about them, I write about them. It's what I have always done.

It seems like you glossed over the risks that can come with sex.

Yes. I was lucky in that I never had a birth-control failure and ended up pregnant, and never caught an STI even during the brief period when I was using the Pill as my only form of birth control. I'm also lucky in that every guy I ever went home with the same night I met him turned out to be basically decent (I actually had more trouble with women in this regard--again, perhaps something I'll write about another time). I have never experienced sexual violence. But I think we focus too much on the risks of sex. I wanted to talk about the rewards.

You say you "had" a lot of sex. So, this is in your past?

No. I still have a lot of sex.

Oh, for heaven's sake, why did you have to tell us that?

Because I am 47 years old, have three kids, and weigh almost 300 pounds. The idea of someone like me being sexual is treated as a joke in our culture. I am here to tell you in all seriousness: fat middle-aged moms like to fuck, too.

You'll just say anything, won't you? Have you no shame?

No, I have no shame. That's my whole point.

I have no shame.

 

Posted with Blogsy

Super Secret Super Spy

When we arrived at the Y for the homeschool swim party, our 13-year-old friend The Armorer, who had unexpectedly spent the night with us last night, didn't have his swim suit. His mom was a little late, so I asked a friend with 7 kids if, by any chance, she had a spare in his size.

Alas, not with her, she said, but said that someone who resembled her but with much looser ethics had been known to check the Lost & Found, "find" a missing swim suit for the afternoon, and then leave it behind again.

I was about to try this gambit when The Armorer's mom arrived.

Sadly, however, it turned out that his swimsuit had been left home.

I decided to try the gambit. This is the story of Super Spy Su And The "Missing" Swimsuit.

First, I decided that I would try to do this without actually telling a lie. I would say things that were technically true, and allow inferences to do the rest.

Accordingly, I went to the front desk and said, "We seem to be short a swimsuit. May I check the Lost & Found?"

Tim was summoned to take me to the Lost & Found.

He caused trouble from the first by asking as we walked there, "What color is it?"

"Ummm...navy blue," I said, figuring the odds were good that, if there were any swimsuits in the Armorer's size, one of them would be navy blue.

Tim continued to make trouble in the Lost & Found room, "helping" me root through bins. I had hoped to be less supervised, so it wouldn't be quite so obvious that the only actual criterion I had was size.

"I'm not sure I'll recognize it," I said. "I can't always tell the kids' swimsuits apart. Look, here's one that is exactly like my husband's!" All of these things were technically true.

I had found a promising candidate, in navy blue even, but covered in white Hawaiian-style flowers...I was pondering how to pretend this was the swimsuit I was looking for despite it having not occurred to me earlier to mention the flowers, when Tim said, "Well, if you can't find his, this whole bag here has just been through the wash. He can borrow one of these for the afternoon."

I blinked a couple of times and said, "This one will do, then."

Tim even delivered it to the men's locker room for me.

So much for my brilliant career in espionage.

Posted with Blogsy

I Have 30 Minutes

In thirty minutes, I need to pile the kids--including a friend who slept over last night--into the van, pick up the Tiny Tornado early from school even though I forgot to tell his teacher I would be doing so, and take the whole crew to a homeschool swim outing at the Y. I will need at least 5 of those minutes for collecting swimsuits & towels. In 24 minutes, I will post whatever I have managed to write. [sets timer]

Raider loves everything I write. If I post something to my blog or send him an e-mail, he drops whatever he is doing to read it. And then, we have this conversation:

Me: Did you read my blog post?

Raider: Yes! I liked it.

Me: Did you like it?

Raider, patiently: Yes.

Me: What did you like about it?

Raider: Its general goodness.

Sometimes I press him for details. I pressed him for details about yesterday's post, and he said he espeically liked "The afore-mentioned Mocha, for instance, went from Suave Seductive Butch to Frothing Drama Queen in something less than 96 hours." He said, "You have a way with words."

He also said he liked the math in the first paragraph.

I said: You don't feel like I share too much information about us?

Raider, sighing: No.

Me: That sigh says something different.

Raider: I am mostly teasing you. I mean, would we still be together if...

Me, interrupting: What you're saying is, that ship has already sailed.

Raider: Heh, yes.

I have been thinking about the Lego Savant. I recently read yet another on-line conversation in which people pulled out the old "Lego sets just aren't creative like they used to be" cliche. You know those Bingo cards for on-line conversations? There's one for Lego-related conversations where every square says, "These new sets have all these specific pieces and can only build the model on the box."

"Guaranteed Bingo by the seventh comment," the creator says. In this recent conversation, I Bingo'd at comment four.

I always think these people have never actually watched kids build with Lego, or that they themselves are not very creative. Or that, as parents, they are imposing some kind of ridiculous rule on their kids that they're not allowed to breakdown sets and re-purpose the pieces. The Lego Savant used to do that all the time; when he heard me commenting to someone that over the last couple of years, he had started keeping more of his sets intact for display, he said, "Oh, that's just because I finally had enough pieces to work on my own stuff."

The Lego Savant builds amazing stuff out of his re-purposed Lego Star Wars sets, which have wonderful pieces to work with. But what I was going to talk about was how much I enjoy his technical interest in new sets. He is excited by new pieces--he recently was talking to me about a dilemma he had about a set he got for Christmas (not the big one, with 3000+ pieces. A more modest one). On the one hand, it was a very cool set he would enjoy keeping intact; on the other hand, it had a couple of new shapes that were giving him all kinds of ideas for MOCs. (In Lego parlance: My Own Creations.)

Probably, it occurs to me, if he decides to keep the set intact, we'll end up at BrickLink or eBay, buying some individual pieces, or a lot, so that he can also build the ideas in his head.

He is also interested in new build techniques the designers come up with. "I've never seen a hinge done like this before!" he'll tell me. I have discovered that I like to build Lego sets, having helped my kids with many over the years, and for me it's much the same experience as doing a puzzle, or building a model from a kit. For him, it is that, but he's also experiencing it on a higher level, integrating what the designers have done into his own reportoire of techniques. He is inspired both creatively and technically by building kits.

He got a set with over 3000 pieces for Christmas this year. He is enjoying working on it, and learning a lot. But he has also commented a number of times on the interesting fact that, although it is the largest set he has ever built--it will be about 4 feet long when finished--it is technically a micro-build. Most Lego sets are built to minifig scale--if it's a car, you can put a Lego minifigure in the driver seat and it will be proportional.

The Super Star Destroyer, however, is built to a scale that is too small for the minifigs. There is a smaller detachable part--a ship, maybe, or just the bridge, I'm not sure--that is minifig scale. But the rest is micro-scale. The Lego Savant likes that it is huge but also a micro-build--an interesting paradox!--and he likes imagining how big the ship would have to be to be minifig scale.

In that same conversation at MetaFilter, a user wrote an excellent comment about how licensing Lego sets for Star Wars and other tie-ins is pretty well accepted as having saved the company from bankruptcy. Imagine a world without Lego! We are such a Lego-loving family that when it was time to renew my license plates in October, I actually toyed with the idea of getting a Lego-related vanity plate. I am not really a vanity plate person, though.

Time to go. I could say much more about Lego, and I might come back and add a few images to this later. But off I go to do the swimming thing with the kids.

Posted with Blogsy

LYSF: 97% Monogamous

My most recent post on non-monogamy made me sound both wiser and more experienced that I really am. I am, in fact, neither wise nor especially experienced. I just did some math, and figured that Raider and I have been together for almost 235 months. During those 235 months, I have dated three other people for a total of...*counts on fingers*...just a hair under seven months. Raider, something less than that.

That's slightly less than 3% of our relationship. 2.97%, to be precise.

We are not exactly what you'd call swingers.

But why not? In my last post, I had much to say about the joys of non-monogramy. But non-monogamy as I practice it is hardly different from monogramy, at least statistically speaking. Why is that?

One reason is that I am profoundly conservative and prefer to protect my relationship with Raider, which is the best thing that has ever happened to me and the foundation of everything else in my life. If being non-monogamous makes me feel secure in my relationship, choosing not to date does too. I have been around the block enough times to know what can happen to people when they get caught up in their emotions. Heck, three different times, I have been the new girl on one end of a "V" when the person at the apex decided it was time to end their prior, long-term relationship (one of those three times was Raider, actually. That was a long time ago).

But there have also been long stretches of time when I just plain wasn't interested in dating--for instance, the decade or so beginning when I got pregnant with the Lego Savant in September 2000. During this time, I was very busy birthing and adopting babies and caring for them, while also teaching English, coping with chronic pain, homeschooling the babies when they turned into kids, watching all of Joss Whedon's oeuvre, and trying to have some semblance of a couple relationship with Raider. I had no time to think about dating. When I did think about it, it seemed entirely possible that my non-monogamous days were over.

Even when I have been willing to date, my parameters have been very narrow. I have tended to choose my time and place very carefully. My time and place was usually the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, where I was a worker for a number of years. I flirted a lot at festival, with women I knew only as Mocha or Mullein or Flame or Rocky, women who were conveniently going to return to homes far away, in Seattle or Nebraska, or even better, on another continent altogether. I need a lover that won't drive me crazy, was my philosophy, someone who'll thrill me, and then go away.

When I started to think, back in 2010 or thereabouts, that I might be interested in dating again, I figured it just wasn't going to happen. My days at Michigan are behind me, and there isn't anything else like it in my life. Sure, I still go to conferences. I attend the Friends General Conference Gathering almost every July, for instance. But it is hard to imagine any setting less like the heady hormonal stew of the workers' camp at Michigan. It's like the place is bathed in an anti-sex dampening field. (The High School & Young Adult dorms are probably exceptions to this.) And all the people at FGC, or in FLGBTQC, that I might have been interested in also attend nearly every year. In other words, I would almost certainly see them again! No, thank you.

Finally, dating often sucks. The afore-mentioned Mocha, for instance, went from Suave Seductive Butch to Frothing Drama Queen in something less than 96 hours. If the right woman can have Raider thanking her by proxy for the good energy she brings to our relationship, the wrong woman can have me flopping down on the bed next to him, sighing, "That was so not worth it." My first lover and I broke up in 1988; Raider and I got together in 1993. I packed a couple of lifetimes' worth of bad choices, drama, "processing," and tears into those five years. I have no patience for drama, but until very recently, I had almost no faith in my ability to date without it.

I still want to tell you all about those five years. You learn a lot from bad decisions; perhaps others could benefit from my experience without having to suffer quite so much. And I would like to tell you about the last six months, when I have figured out that dating doesn't have to suck, and that it can be a pleasure to see a person again, if you choose the right person. But that is about all I can say on that subject.

 

Posted with Blogsy

My Mother, Poor Woman, Is Still Dead

The Tiny Tornado and I set an alarm to make sure we're up in time for school. But we mostly don't need it. He tends to wake up sometime after 7, and crawls into bed with me for a cuddle. We use the alarm to tell us it's time to stop snuggling and get moving.

He's such an energetic little person. This morning, after the alarm, I said to him, "Are you ready for another day?" He said, "I sure am!"

This morning during our cuddle I found myself thinking about my parents. I told Raider that if I'd known how liberating it would feel to be disowned by my dad, I'd have worked harder to push him to the brink years ago. We wonder, though, if it would have been possible while my mom was still alive. It makes me curious about what was going on between them, marriage being the complicated thing it is. We imagine him as a dog straining to escape, and her as the one holding the leash.

This morning, I found myself thinking about how my mom died friendless. People liked her, but she always saw the worst in everyone. When I was a child, I wondered how it could be that my mom didn't actually like any of her friends. As I got older, I realized that her "friends" were generally relatives, or the wives of my dad's friends. I think she experienced liberation as her siblings and in-laws died in recent years, and when her last surviving brother was so unethical in his handling of my Uncle Charlie's estate that she felt clear to sever ties. Perhaps this is something else we had in common: that we hung onto bad family relationships too long, and were relieved when their ends were taken out of our hands.

The wives, though--lovely women who seemed to sincerely like my mom. But my mother always chose to see the worst in everyone. Given a choice, she ascribed the least flattering motivation to everyone's actions. She magnified people's flaws and failings, and overlooked their gifts. In recent years, she had simply refused to socialize with these people anymore; my dad carried on without her. And she never, that I saw, made any effort to make friends of her own, on her own terms.

When I was a senior in high school, I became friends with a group of girls who transformed my ideas of what friendship could be. They changed my life for the better, and for good. I'd previously been part of a large, fun, and loving but messed-up crew that thrived on drama and loved to gossip behind each other's backs. It was eye-opening to fall in with a group who actually liked and supported each other. A whole new model of friendship!

My mother, of course, didn't like these girls. She never liked any of my friends, but for some reason she had a particular disdain for this group. She had a derogatory nickname for each of them, for instance, which she used whenever they weren't present. And, while I was experiencing these friendships as the first truly healthy and loving relationships of my life, my mother questioned my motives. She thought these girls were beneath me--even as I, struggling to break old habits, wasn't always sure I deserved them.

One of her favorite accusations was that I had chosen these friends because they weren't as smart as me, so that I would look better by comparison. I can remember arguing with her about it many times. For one thing, these girls were smart. I have lost track of a couple of them, but the rest turned out to be:

1. A math major in college who worked for the census bureau and is now a teacher.

2. A mechanical engineer.

3. A Sociology Ph.D. who is a researcher at the University of Wisconsin.

4. A History Ph.D. who is a professor at Kalamazoo College.

If my intention was to look smarter by comparison, well, I'm going to say that was a failed strategy.

I tried to tell her, also, that to the extent that I was choosing friends in order to look smart to some imaginary audience, it would make more sense to choose smart friends. "Hmm," someone might say, "I never though Su Penn was all that bright...but she must have something going on upstairs to be able to keep up with that crew." But she could never see another point of view than her own, and she could never see the goodness in people.

I am so much like my mother that I count it as one of the great blessings of my life that I have managed to not be like her in this way (after some early false starts and failures). My mother was a lovely woman, a raconteur, hilarious to listen to. She made a vocation of keeping and passing on the family's stories. People liked her; over the years, many people have told me of their appreciation for her sense of humor or her charm or her thoughtfulness, and I have no reason to think they were being insincere. People were ready to love my mother, but, for the most part, she did not love them back.

That is my eulogy for today.

Posted with Blogsy

LYSF: What I Like About Non-Monogamy

This is the fourth post in a sort-of series I'm calling Loving Your Slutty Friend. You can find the first three posts here, here, and here.

A friend told me that he was liking my posts about non-monogamy, but he hoped I'd write something about what is fun about it, and not just always make it sound like it's a big relationship challenge. "Hmmm, he is correct," I thought. "I should do that."

Note: I started this draft a couple of weeks ago, and then got busy with having a bad cold, and then having some seriously debilitating withdrawal effects from going off one of my headache medications because of intolerable side effects. And, of course, in that couple of weeks I learned that someone else is writing about this same thing. Aggie over at SoloPoly, whose blog I recently discovered, wrote just recently about "What's Wonderful About Being Solo, Poly, and Single," a piece of writing I really enjoyed, and I'll say a bit more about her post toward the end.

First, some disclaimers: One is that, as I started drafting this post in my head, I caught myself writing it in a negative way: "I don't worry about this, I don't have to deal with that," which made it sound like I was saying, "In monogamous relationships, there are all these icky bits that I, fortunately, have transcended." Oops. Not at all what I mean. I've made efforts to not say such things explicitly, but I don't mean to imply them, either. If it sounds like I'm making some negative generalization about monogamous relationships, call me on it so I can fix it, or explain myself better.

Also, this is my own experience, and it comes from my own inclinations, desires, and needs, and from my particular relationship with Raider. I'm not making any generalizations at all about how other people experience non-monogamy or what they find to be the good parts.

Finally, I think a very reasonable question people might ask would be, "But, if you were in a monogamous relationship, wouldn't you be getting these things some other way?" Yes, I probably would be. Or I'd be in a monogamous relationship because I didn't want or need some of these things. It's like homeschooling. One kid might learn to read through a rigorous phonics program, another by picking it up from being read aloud to, another as a side benefit of learning to write. All of those kids need to learn to read, but they do it in different ways according to their strengths and inclinations. If being non-monogamous helps me feel secure in my relationship with Raider, allows me to most fully express my sexuality, and helps me feel attractive, well, great. But I make no claim that non-monogamy is the only way a person, or even I, could achieve those things.

"Too much intro," I hear people saying. "Get to the good part." Well, OK. What makes being nonmonogamous so great?

First, and paradoxically, it makes me feel very secure in my primary relationship, because I can bring everything into it. If I develop a crush on someone, as I did a couple of years ago, I can just say so. I don't have to pretend I'm spending so much time with so-and-so because she is just the nicest person and I so long to be better friends with her. I can tell Raider right up front that so-and-so is getting my kettle boiling.

This means that no matter how steamy the kitchen gets, it's no threat to me and Raider. I'm not risking infidelity. And we can be talking about what, if anything, this crush means for us. To do nonmonogamy well, you can't be trying to figure things out on your own. You've got to talk about it. These conversations, even the ones that are sometimes hard, make you closer. They build trust.

That said, it's not all hard work. Raider likes to tease me about a crush; I love to hear it when some person crosses his radar. It's fun. It's just as much fun as sitting around with a friend dishing about the new guy at work. Only I get to do it with the person I love the best and am the closest to in the whole world.

Second, I like to flirt, and it makes me feel cute and sexy to flirt with other people. I've been with Raider a long time--coming up on 20 years in June. Raider thinks I am beautiful, cute, and sexy, but I have got to tell you that after so many years, it starts to lose its impact. Raider and I once had this conversation:

Me: How do I look?

Raider: Cute!

Me: You didn't even look at me!

Raider: I didn't have to. You're always cute.

This is great. Every woman should be so lucky. But once in awhile I like some outside confirmation. And my friends telling me I look good just can't have the same impact as hearing it from someone who is actually into me.

Writing about flirting makes me want another relationship word, for Person You Mutually Flirt With In A Totally Serious Way Because You Actually Do Think Each Other Are Hot and You Have Sexual Tension, But It's Clear Between You For Some Reason That You Will Never Have a Sexual or Romantic Relationship And You're Both OK With That Even If Maybe At Least One Of You Might Have Been Into It Had Things Been Different. Some of my best and most favorite relationships have fallen into this category. I'm a flirt, and being nonmonogamous lets me express that freely, so long as I respect the boundaries of the people I'm flirting with.

This might be a side note, but one of the reasons I like to flirt is because I like other people to know how cute and sexy they are, too. Some folks are aware that I flirt a lot, and they may wonder, "Just how often, when Su flirts, is she serious about it?" The answer is always. I flirt only with people I sincerely find attractive and hot. I find a lot of people attractive and hot. Doesn't mean I necessarily wanna do 'em. But I'm never pretending.

Thirdly, I like sex. I like it with Raider. I love it with Raider. Whenever I have reason to honor a new relationship, say at a wedding, I write in the card, "I wish you every happiness." And one of the things I mean by this is, "I wish you good sex." And what I really mean by that is, "I hope your sex is as good as mine and Raider's." I wish this sincerely for the whole world.

But I like sex, once in awhile--not really that often, in the grand scheme of things, but once in awhile--with someone else, too. Because sex is one of the ways I relate to people. I enjoy the kind of connection you have with someone when you are physically intimate. Back when I was a young free agent, sex was one of the ways I got to know people.

Fourthly, or maybe this is a subset of number three: Sex is different with different people in ways that are fun and satisfying. Oh, man, there are stories I wish I were free to tell you. Let me just say that people bring different energy to sex. Where one is serious and intense, say, another is laughingly playful. And they bring out different things in their partners. Sex with a new person is also a process of self-discovery.

Fifthly! There is nothing like New Relationship Energy. In a previous post, I talked about NRE as something that might challenge an established relationship. But New Relationship Energy can also feed back into your old relationship, bringing a very welcome spark of freshness. It can give you a taste of the days when you were bathed in limerence, couldn't stop thinking about each other, couldn't keep your hands off each other. I'm trying very hard not to tell this story, but it's too good an illustration to keep to myself: there was this time that Raider and I had some very nice sex, and we were lying there basking in the sweaty afterglow, and he turned to me and said with a grin, "Thank [name redacted] for me."

Penultimately, non-monogamy gives you a lot of practice at establishing and respecting boundaries, and taking responsibility for your actions. When there are more than two people involved, you can't coast along for too long without talking explicitly about how this is going to work, or things get messy. I'm realizing I already touched on this up-top, so I'll repeat myself: To do nonmonogamy well, you can't be trying to figure things out on your own. You've got to talk about it. These conversations, even the ones that are sometimes hard, make you closer. They build trust.

Finally, this just seems to be how I'm wired. I don't know why. It is clearly not essential for me to have more than one partner at a time, as evidenced by the many years during which I have happily had just the one. But when the time comes that I am pulled toward someone specific, or pulled more generally toward the new, it is healthy and honest for me not to have to pretend otherwise.

As a coda, I'm going to build on what Aggie said in the post I linked above:

For me, one of the best perks of being poly is that I’m always seeing relationship options. If I click well with someone who is available to connect with me on an honest basis, we usually can figure out some way to make it work.

I'll pull out this bit: I'm always seeing relationship options. That doesn't mean I'm looking for sex with every person I like even a little. Mostly, in fact, I am not looking for sex even with people I'm sexually attracted to. But I like that my only two relationship options aren't "platonic friend" and "monogamous lover." I mentioned above the Ongoing Flirtation. I also like its cousin, the Short-Term Flirtation. One of my favorite non-Raider relationships of the past 20 years fell into that category. I like kissing, I like touching, I like cuddling. I am sometimes intrigued by things people tell me about their sexual practices and I like that show-and-tell could be a possiblity. I see a lot of options, and I'm not even aware of all the options that are out there.

And a final note: I think it was last year sometime when I updated my relationship status on Facebook from "In a Relationship" to "In an Open Relationship." My motives were prurient; I was dropping a hint on someone I was in a flirtation with. She didn't take the bait, but I started getting e-mails. I have been astonished--filled with wonder and amazement, as the dictionary says; filled with the emotional impact of overwhelming surprise--by how many of my friends and loved ones are also in non-monogamous relationships of various kinds. I have been surrounded by my peers and never knew it. I thank every single one of the people who have shared their experiences with me.

 

Posted with Blogsy