Let's Eat Cake!

I’ve been reading a few blogs centered around poly couples who married young and relatively sexually inexperienced and then opened up their relationships later on.   I would be interested in a blog that discusses whether or not the lack of sexual experiences prior to marriage leads more often or not to opening up a relationship later on.

I’m having a hard time writing about this because my relationship has been open from day one, and neither Luke nor I are lacking in sexual experience.  Trying to come at this from an “informed” perspective is difficult, because it’s not like there’s a wealth of information on different kinds of poly relationships.  The media is still pretty centered around the fact that there are successful poly relationships at all – not the differences or statistics surrounding them.

To me, it seems reasonable that someone who has had numerous sexual partners might be a more likely candidate for polyamory.  When you’ve had a lot of sexual partners, you might have a better grasp on the separation of love and sex.  It may be easier to realize that your partner is capable of loving you and sleeping with someone else, or developing a relationship with someone else, and that it doesn’t mean s/he doesn’t still love you.

What have your experiences been?  I know several of you who married young, or married the person you lost your virginity to.  What was/is that like?  Do you wish you had more experiences outside your relationship?  For those who are no longer with that first great love, how is your opinion different from how it was back then?   

Bit by bit, maybe we can develop our own little research.

Stars On Ice has deemed three time national champion figure skater Johnny Weir “not family friendly,” thereby refusing to allow him to participate in its tour. 

Johnny Weir truly is a superstar and is a perfect candidate for Stars on Ice.  Yes, sometimes he dresses in feminine, flamboyant costumes.  This is figure skating, after all.  He’s never confirmed or denied his sexuality, but they’ve made their assumptions and their judgement call.  I guess his swagger is just a bit too femme for their liking.  

This guy has crowds absolutely smitten, and it’s no surprise why.

As far as “family friendly,” he is an upstanding role model for kids.

Weir is extremely involved with his family. He is putting his younger brother through college, and supports the family financially because his father’s disability prohibits him from working. Weir’s dedication to his family can be clearly documented in the Sundance series, Be Good Johnny Weir, which follows him and his family and friends through his life and career as a championship skater.

This is especially hilarioius when you consider it’s figure skating.  I’m sorry, but those tights are tight enough and that lapel is sparkly enough, how can they tell the difference?  

I mean really. . Brian Boitano?

God forbid a child should see Weir on TV and ask “what’s up with that?,” forcing parents to explain the concept of DIFFERENCE to their child.  And never mind all the families with gay/ transgender children, who could actually relate to someone like Johnny.

I had so much hope for Johnny.  Not family friendly?  Whose family are they talking about?

The Good:

New York gets points in my book today for an innovative, sex-positive new design for condoms.  Duh, it’s a condom, they should be sex positive by default, but the beauty of this condom design is that it isn’t just promoting sexual safety – it’s celebrating human sexuality as a whole, equating safe sex with power, and owning your sexuality with strength.  It’s a clever design, and one that will resonate with the new generation.  Instead of hiding behind a veil of obscurity and taboo, this new design really embraces the concept of being “turned on and plugged in,” both physically and emotionally.  In other words, it makes safe sex look cool.


 The Bad:

By now most of you have heard about Constance McMillen, the Mississippi teen who caused waves by wanting to bring her girlfriend to prom.  Leave it to Mississippi to draw more attention to the things they are afraid of, with negative press.  They’ve made a mountain out of a molehill.  How many kids jokingly cross-dress, or go with same sex friends that they refer to as dates?  Why is this one different? 

Because she is a REAL lesbian, wanting to take her REAL girlfriend (that she has SEX with, no doubt) to the prom.  It’s not like they’re going to be having sex right there on the plastic table cloths, little blue confetti stars sticking to their naked bodies.  At this point, even if the girls do get their way, it’s still a victory for Mississippi – the girls (and every other gay or lesbian teen in the school) were publicly humiliated, not to mention being blamed for their prom being cancelled.  Mississippi loses big fat points in my book for this one.  

Hey look!  You can help!  Go here, sign the petition.   

The other night I called the police on my upstairs neighbors, because I was tired of them blasting their music at 1 am.  When the cops arrived, we stood in the lobby of my building and I explained the situation.  The cop (white male in his 50’s, for context), was asking questions, nodding, being very friendly. 

At one point in our conversation, his eyes flashed to my chest, almost imperceptibly.  I silently registered the action, and instinctively looked down as well, taking no more than a second to do so.  I lifted my eyes back up, right back into his, and the conversation continued as though nothing had happened, except I quickly and casually adjusted my shirt, feeling exposed. 

It was like a silent agreement, as though he’d said, “I’m going to check out your rack now,” and I said, “Ok, let’s get it over with so we can get back to the topic.”   

This is an every day experience for women, and I hardly notice it anymore.  It’s not that we don’t SEE it - every woman knows when a man’s eyes have focused on her chest, even for that one second the guy hopes is unnoticeable.  It’s not.  It’s like there are motion detectors on a woman’s nipples, and every time a man’s gaze triggers them, a mental alarm screams, “OGLER - 3 o’clock!” 

It bothers me that we take it for granted that men will ogle us, but the truth is, I’ve forgiven men for it, because I really believe they just can’t help themselves. 

Now before some radical feminists come bashing my door down, I’m not making excuses for assholes.  I’m not excusing things like rape, by saying “Oh, the poor guy just couldn’t help himself.”  That would be ridiculous.  I’m saying that men’s eyes are drawn to boobs like a raver to a glitter factory.  It’s science.  I don’t feel they are trying to objectify us or belittle us when they ogle us, it’s just their natural reaction.         

Can you blame them?  We live in a sexually repressed society.  Boobies are interesting, because we aren’t exposed to them enough in real life.  For fuck’s sake, women are thrown out of establishments for exposing their breasts to feed their children.  The law allows a man to walk around with his boy boobs hanging out, but women have to cover up.  It’s no wonder men are so fascinated with boobs - they don’t get to see enough of them. 

And the truth is, I do the same damn thing.  I can’t even say I try to make it subtle.  Part of me realizes that as a woman, I can get away with it.  Women are more forgiving of each other, probably because we don’t openly hit on each other nearly as much as we should.  When a woman checks me out, I think, “Wow, she’s noticeably attracted to me, that’s so hot.”  If a guy openly eyeballs me I think, “God, pull yourself together, man.” 

I recognize the double standard.  Just because women are more forgiving of other women, doesn’t mean men are more perverted.

So really, guys, I feel obligated to forgive you, too. 

As Hollywood starts to embrace polyamory, more couples are “coming out” publicly.  Actress and comedienne Mo’Nique interviewed with Barbara Walters after the Oscars, and opened up about her open marriage.  Aside from the cheap shots taken by this article’s author, (“last night’s special took an unusual turn when actress Mo’Nique endorsed and spoke about her open marriage, leaving many wishing for Less’Nique“), Mo’Nique did a wonderful job representing polyamory, and had some great things to say. 

Walters questioned a previous statement by Mo’Nique and asked if, “cheating is when you lie and are deceitful, not when you have sex outside of the marriage?” Monique responded with a “yes.”

Walters then asked, “Do you and Sid have sex outside of the marriage?”

Mo’Nique responded, “Do we have sex outside of the marriage? Let me say this. I have not had sex outside of my marriage with Sidney. Could I have sex outside of my marriage with Sidney? Yes. Could Sid have sex outside of his marriage with me? Yes. That’s not a deal breaker. That’s not something that we would say, ‘Oh my God because you were attracted to another person and because you happened to have sex let’s end the marriage.’”

“And if it happened multiple times,” Walters questioned, “You wouldn’t care?”

Mo’Nique continued to cheerlead for open marriage and stated, “That’s not something that would make us say, ‘pack your things and let’s end the marriage’ because we’ve been best friends for- is it over 25 years? And we truly know who we are. Truly. Often times people get into marriages and they don’t know who they’re laying next to. I’m very comfortable and secure with my husband.”

While Mo’Nique may be secure, she never discussed how her children would handle their parents having an open marriage or how it would impact them.

Perhaps just to clarify, Walters questioned, “You are in an open marriage?” When Mo’Nique responded that she was Walters asked for a definition of “open marriage.”

 “No secrets. Open means, you know what, let me tell you my every secret, my fantasies, my thoughts so that way there are no surprises.”

Maybe the reason Mo’Nique has endorsed open marriage is because she’s been paying attention to the mainstream media. In December Newsweek alleged that open marriages were a way to stop all the ‘cheating scandals.” A Nightline episode in September featured Jenny Block, an author (and participant) who has pushed for open marriages.

Even as early as 2007 Oprah featured a couple that participated in an open marriage, while having experts who advocated for having friends with benefits.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/sarah-knoploh/2010/03/08/mo-nique-open-marriage-not-deal-breaker#ixzz0hcOe4Vt2

Today is War on Drugs Day on Let’s Eat Cake.

This was brought up by a conversation I had the other night about the US Government intentionally poisoning alcohol during the Prohibition Era, knowing the shipments were being stolen by bootleggers. In all the articles I read about this, they always cite the same reason: Frustration that people continued to consume alcohol even after it was banned. Like they were concerned for our health. I think the more appropriate verbiage would be that people continued to sell the government’s alcohol, because like the bumper sticker says, “”Don’t Steal, the Government Hates Competition.”

This would be equivalent to today’s government intentionally distributed laced cocaine to kill off the drug dealers. Doesn’t sound like a bad plan. If all the coke users are afraid that the next line could be their last, would it deter them from using it? Probably not, as the power of addiction would override that fear.

But it would at least put a kink in their system, right? So why doesn’t the government do this? Since we can be pretty sure it’s not a MORAL issue, perhaps it’s because they’d be killing off their best clients.

Now, here’s what I’m confused about. If the drug war is about money or control or power, how is it not beneficial for the government to legalize marijuana? Not only would it allow them to tax and control marijuana sales, it would make more room in our prison system for people who deserve to be there. It would create jobs, it would decrease families being torn apart, and lower drug-related crimes in general.

So what’s the hold up? Is it because they’re afraid to admit they were wrong, that marijuana is NOT a gateway drug? That it’s NOT the beginning of a life of crime (except maybe for displaced children whose parents have been incarcerated for drug charges)? That is has NO negative health effects? How can they promote the use of tobacco (435,000 annual deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths) and alcohol (related deaths total 85,000 annually; 3.5% of total US deaths) but say marijuana is morally wrong (because this is really a moral argument)?

Do you know how many deaths are attributed to marijuana, not just annually, but in its entire history of use?

Zero.

It doesn’t make sense. Where the government could be making money, they are losing significantly (you can now watch these numbers climb on the bottom right hand corner of this blog). I’m not a pot smoker. I could really care less, personally – but on a rational, sane level, I’d kind of like some answers.

I know I’m preaching to the choir, and this isn’t stuff you haven’t heard before. So can anyone tell me how it’s all tied in? This is where my knowledge is limited. For example, what does this mean?

*Source: US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, “In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition” (Docket #86-22), September 6, 1988, p. 56-57.
http://druglibrary.net/olsen/MEDICAL/YOUNG/young4.html

**source: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/53

When I was getting ready for work this morning, I had to run my outfit by Luke a few times, to make sure it wasn’t too “mom-ish.”  I’m not talking about my status as a parent, I’m talking about the nagging reminder that we will all be old someday, and the determination with which we try to slow this process down.  I’ve been torn lately over how old I dress.

Apparently, there is a pre-midlife stage where a woman is trapped between clothing departments.  I am in that stage.  At 31, I am too old to be wearing ANYTHING my 13-year-old daughter would wear.  This is according to her, and I disagree*, but what if I’m one of those women who dresses like they’re 16 and doesn’t even realize it?  To risk that happening, there are boundaries one must follow: I long ago accepted that I’m not allowed to shop in the Juniors Department.

*This magical dress, from Express, is one that my daughter and I share.  It fits us quite differently, but definitely works for both of us:

On the flip side, I am entirely too cool to be browsing the Women’s department in just about any department store, which is filled with mock turtlenecks and khaki pants.  Who decided that as soon as you turn 30, you instantly gain 10 pounds around the midsection and enjoy wearing black loafers?  They act as though the word “blazer” had always been a part of our vocabulary.  If thirty is the new twenty, department stores sure haven’t caught on yet. 

The slightest cut of your jeans can make the difference between a sexy, hip woman and a 70’s flashback.  Jessica Simpson is living proof of this potential for disaster, where she instantly transforms from sex kitten to cougar-in-waiting.

Fortunately there are store like Express, which are directed at women my age, but you can only shop at one store for so long before you become a walking advertisement.  After that, you’re stuck with Old Navy or the Gap, and I’m still left with agonizing indecision as I try to determine whether or not I look like my mother. 

I realize this is only going to get worse.  

Are there any stores you swear by? 

My interview on Liberating Porn.

Let’s Eat Cake with Erin (Primer in Polyamory)

Today I received an email from a guy on Ok Cupid that said, simply, “Not real.”  When I asked what he meant, he told me my profile was a fake, and was written by a man pretending to be “the girl with the HUGE boobs.”  Shocked, I asked him why he thought that, and he said my profile is too straight-forward and manly to have been written by a girl, especially one with big boobs.  When I told him to check out my blog as proof that I’m a woman, he said the name “Let’s Eat Cake” proves even more that I’m a man.

Hey, it’s not the first time I’ve been told I act like a man.  Evidently, men are sexualized, drama-free and straight to the point (see: not crazy).  I’m ok with this.  Obviously, not all men are this way, and really, it’s not that women aren’t allowed to be this way either, it’s just that men don’t believe them when they are. 

I have to admit, I’m guilty of this myself.  When Luke finds the rare woman who is truly happy to have a strictly sexual relationship with him, I keep waiting for the other shoe to fall, for the moment when she professes that she wants more from him.  I’m torn between fighting for a woman’s right to be as bold, salacious, trampy and casual as she wants to be. . .and trying to find the women who actually want to be that way.  It’s the rare female that actually owns her sexuality, pursues men or women confidently, doesn’t fall into drama or neediness when the lines between sex and love are blurred and can stay level-headed and logical through it all (if that’s what they choose – some women choose to fall head over heels, and that’s ok, too). 

The point this guy was making, however, isn’t that women can’t be all of these things - but that pretty women can’t be all of these things.  My profile was obviously too far off his mental scope for comprehension (so much that he thought I was a fraud), but the truth is, this guy represents the masses.  It seems like such an uphill battle:  first having to prove that I’m not an emotional wreck waiting to happen, and now having to prove I’m not a male in disguise.  

Part of the problem is, in many ways he is right.  Why is the handful of attractive and intelligent and sex-positive women so small?  Remember, folks, we’re in a bubble.  Let’s Eat Cake is a tiny bubble that is visited by probably half of the handful, already.  If you’re a woman and you’re my friend, it’s pretty likely you are part of a minority of women in America.  For all intents and purposes, you don’t count. 

I think God did this, I really do.  I think he took all the perfectly slutty women and put the fear of hell into them, taught them words like “guilt” and “shame,” and ruined it for the rest of us.  Now there are all these sexually free women running around in prude’s bodies, and when they do ask for what they want and take it, they apologize for it and make excuses (I was drunk).

Then we wonder why men are so shocked when women say what they mean and make no apologies for it.  I don’t feel this situation is improving much – I fear my bubble of dynamic women is getting smaller, as one by one they jump on the drama train.  The few that are left, I’m holding onto for dear life.  Same goes for the sexy, smart, emotionally in-tune men who appreciate women like us.

                          (the largest House of Prostitution in the World, constructed in a public street, under the sanction and approval of H.C. Gill, when Mayor, and now ready for occupancy)

Found an interesting article in Seattle Metropolitan magazine, detailing how the Emerald City has a history of prostitution that runs as deep as our historic underground, including being home to the largest brothel in the world.  Where a lot of people would be ashamed of this fact and try to sweep it under the rug, I am proud to be native to a city with such a rich sexual history.   

1853Young Mary Conklin washes up in Seattle after her whaling-captain husband maroons her at Port Townsend. She manages the Felker House at First and Main, the infant town’s first inn and, when required, courthouse. Her lavish profanity in six languages earns her the sobriquet “Mother Damnable.” By some accounts she later adds a brothel upstairs and becomes “Madame Damnable.”  (I can’t suggest a more awesome Stage name – any takers?)

February 1888 Madame Lou Graham arrives on the steamer Pacific Pride. She proceeds to build a lavish, genteel bordello above the line, opposite Father Prefontaine’s Church of Our Lady of Good Help at Third and Washington. To entice customers, she and other “parlor house” proprietors parade new girls around town by carriage.

May 13, 1909 After Mayor John F. Miller orders the “disorderly houses” in Seattle’s vice districts closed, police raid five houses, confiscate their liquor, and arrest those found within. Miller endorses “the purpose of segregating vice and the establishing of a thoroughly regulated district as the best practicable means at hand of dealing with the social evil.”  (What do you want to bet he was one of the most frequent clients?)

Seattle is also known for being haunted, and every time I’m walking along the Pier (which I happened to do last night), I am fully aware of this.  I can feel the history and my imagination always takes off, and I swear I can see old Seattle the way it used to be.  There is a subtle backdrop of the past that is practically visible to the naked eye, along the city skyline.  All histories are rich, but it’s exciting to know that Seattle’s comes with a little debauchery.

More interesting facts. . .