"Just leaving. We'll be ties in 20 mins."
"I'm homophobic go shopping first."
The homophobic one? Is what my el cheapo phone comes up with when you try to type 'gonna.' Go on, try it. ;-)
Also, I discovered last night that shamans are not indestructible. Some people who think the world revolves around them and still occasionally take a sneaky look at my blog will probably see this as a death threat. (Obscure reference of which only a few people will twig). Anyway, in reality, I swan-dived my tauren off the batrider tower at Thunder Bluff just to see what would happen. "I'm flying Jack!" she mooed as she descended. At the bottom, she discovered that Lesser Healing Wave only works if you're still alive. Hmm. So much for Shield of Impending Doom.
Yes, I played World of Warcraft. It's been a long time. However, yesterday's events brought on the desire to do something completely mindless with my evening, instead of my usual bogging along with event risk assessments or The Great Part Search that I'm close to giving up on.
I seem to have developed a mental block about machinery. The problem with inanimate objects is that they don't heal themselves. An animal or a person, you can apply first aid and TLC and leave them to it, and they get better. Machinery gets worse. This offends my sensibilities and makes me want to throw the offending machine off a cliff. Yes, this is probably somewhat Freudianly-connected to my self-destructing shaman, but I don't want closer inspection of that particular association, mmk? Anyway, yeah, machinery. It isn't organic enough, basically, for me to ever have a real connection with it. Which is why I need to be independently wealthy, so I can pay for other, more mechanically-minded folk, to maintain any machinery I am forced to have contact with.
*insert paypal button here*
"“An open relationship doesn’t just mean you’re open to sex with other people,” says Siege. “It means you’re open to changes in the relationship, too.” Over and over, couples told us that their goal is less about sex than it is about wanting a relationship that will bend with pressure, rather than break."
First, I have to say, love the guy's name. ;-) It appeals to my sense of irony.
I find it amusing that the bending of relationships always seems to be expected to go towards more 'openness', rather than the other way. Which is absolutely fine, if that's what all parties want. But my experience of this kind of thing (and I'm the first to admit that it's limited), is that usually it's one partner that wants to bend towards openness and the other doesn't but goes along with it because they've agreed to it/feel that if they put limits on the relationship, they will lose it altogether. And thus, the more monogamously-minded of the pair is the one that ends up doing the bending. Either that or there begins to be Strife because the goals of the relationship have diverged, and somebody, or both somebodies, are no longer getting what they want. Partner A suddenly has to deal with the feelings raised by not being the Special One And Only any more, Partner B has to limit themselves or feel guilty because they don't want to hurt Partner A, but still feel the need to follow their heart/goals.
I have no answers to this. Personality-wise, I am Partner A. I have been in the position of Partner B and for me (please note disclaimer, I am not everybody, although if more people thought like me... nah, that's a rant for another time), um.. where was I? That's right. For me, the realisation that I was lusting after someone else came with the realisation that the feelings had nothing to do with said Other Person, but that my current relationship was dead in the water, and my feelings were my subconscious way of going "Give up already. You don't love this guy, you're looking at other guys to fill needs that this relationship is not meeting."
But that's me. I'm kind of unusual, I guess these days, where we're all supposed to be open minded about such things. I am open minded enough to accept that it works for other people, and to not be phased by others' relationships, whatever they happen to be. I'm also self-aware enough to know that open relationships are not for me. Yes, I've tried it. It sucked. I didn't handle, and it did some damage. This probably makes me some kind of unevolved traditionalist, and quite possibly I am, and also I've bought into all the fairytale till death do us part, Protestant work ethic, bible bashing property-snatching pair-everyone-offing bullshit that we get fed all our lives.
I freely admit that. It's also possible that the three major relationships I've had in my life have not been situations where I was able to develop the security that would allow me to be ok about the possibility of openness.
And, I think, if I were to set my experiential cynicism aside for a brief moment, I'm actually a hopeless romantic underneath. *smile* And I truly believe that if people really love each other, deeply, then that security is possible, and open communication where both partners get their needs met, and love conquers all and the music swells and the waves crash and, you know... Stuff Like That.
So yeah. Don't really know what I'm trying to say here, except that, I guess, open relationships are not my thing, but that that could possibly be because I haven't come across the right set of circumstances. And, a successful open relationship could very well be a sign of an extremely healthy primary relationship.
So I guess I agree with the guy quoted, in principle, and the reason that reading the quote made my insides clench is actually that my emotional experience has not yet met my academic theorisations. It's incongruent. *plays a tiny violin*
But it makes me happy to know that I'm open to the possibility of that congruence developing sometime in the future. Complete with swelling music, crashing waves and All That Stuff.