Nov. 6th, 2007

sophiaserpentia: (Default)
Several years ago, Thay Hanh implanted a thought in my mind while i was reading one of his books (probably Living Buddha, Living Christ). It is one of those ideas that, once it sinks in and you apply it, can change your life.

In the Buddhist perspective, attachment is the source of sorrow, because when you get attached to things, you cannot easily adjust when things (as they do) change.

Anyway, Thay Hanh, on the ethics of long-term relationships, wrote that in his school of thought people are taught to treat their significant others as if they are honored houseguests.

The notable thing about the way we treat houseguests, is that we do not place any obligations on them, outside of the common obligations we have as human beings to be decent to one another. And not only that, but we give them a place of priority in our lives while at the same time reserving a sense of our own space.

It's such a very different way of viewing relationships from what we are taught in American society that i have had to turn this idea over in my head many times over the years since. More than any other thing i encountered in his writings, this thought stood out and grabbed my attention.

The underlying basis of this teaching is that fundamentally we choose how we treat people. In America (as, i guess, in many cultures) we often try to disguise the less savory things we do to one another by dressing them up in feelings. "I hit you because i got so angry i just couldn't help it." Well, point of fact, you can help it, because there are a lot of people you wouldn't hit no matter how angry you get, and if you can help it then, you can help it when you're around your partner.

I first read Thay Hanh's treatment of this subject at the time my marriage was ending, and it had a profound impact on the way i viewed the whole relationship, and what i wanted to do moving forward.

For one thing, i was profoundly disappointed in the way i had acted over the years. This is a recurring theme in my life, and it is a difficult part of endeavoring to be a better person: facing my missteps, especially where they have harmed people i care about; then finding a way to live with that, which begins with ensuring that i never do it again (whatever the harmful "it" happens to be).

But it also informed the way i felt i wanted to define my relationships moving forward. For one thing, i am not eager to blend my money, my personal space, my identity with another person ever again. My wife and i, for example, have separate bank accounts, separate bedrooms, separate beds, we don't know one another's passwords, and we like it that way.

The people i love are honored guests in my life. That means they are under no obligation to make themselves available for anything: not for sex, not for affection, not for household chores, not for letting me into their personal space, not for keeping things the way they are.

And as i write this, i am smarting from the pain of having to acknowledge how far outside of these ethics my actions have been recently. If i had been living by the full implications of this ethic, i would not have been caught off-guard when the emotional landscape of my life shifted as it did recently. And i write this not by way of apology, but by way of working things through thoroughly enough that i do not ever commit this wrong again.

What i have learned recently is that even if you approach a relationship from this perspective, it applies not only at the outset of the relationship but each and every moment anew. The emotional landscape of one's life is not permanent.

For someone who is polyamorous, that could mean for example when your significant other starts a new relationship, and suddenly is less available than they were before. They do not owe you the difference. Every bit of affection or attention one receives in a relationship is a gift freely offered, which can be withdrawn at any moment free of blame or guilt. In other words, it does not matter the reason why it is withdrawn. If/when a gift of this nature is withdrawn, one's response should be gratitude that it was given in the first place, not frustration that it has been withdrawn. Such a gift cannot be owned or expected, cannot be yoked with obligation - that road leads to abuse and mistreatment.

Note that one cannot avoid this dilemma by being monogamous, because partners can take up new passtimes or make new friends, and, similarly, they do not owe the difference in what energy they make available to their spouse.
sophiaserpentia: (Default)
A senior Justice Department official, charged with reworking the administration's legal position on torture in 2004 became so concerned about the controversial interrogation technique of waterboarding that he decided to experience it firsthand, sources told ABC News.

Daniel Levin, then acting assistant attorney general, went to a military base near Washington and underwent the procedure to inform his analysis of different interrogation techniques.

After the experience, Levin told White House officials that even though he knew he wouldn't die, he found the experience terrifying and thought that it clearly simulated drowning.

source: Bush Administration Blocked Waterboarding Critic


How did the White House reward this intrepid and enterprising individual? By forcing him out of the Justice Department before he could finish writing his memo.

As Keith Olbermann put it (thanks [livejournal.com profile] novapsyche for the link):

The presidency of George W. Bush has now devolved into a criminal conspiracy to cover the ass of George W. Bush.

All the petulancy, all the childish threats, all the blank-stare stupidity; all the invocations of World War III, all the sophistic questions about which terrorist attacks we wanted him not to stop, all the phony secrets; all the claims of executive privilege, all the stumbling tap-dancing of his nominees, all the verbal flatulence of his apologists...

All of it is now, after one revelation last week, transparently clear for what it is: the pathetic and desperate manipulation of the government, the refocusing of our entire nation, toward keeping this mock president and this unstable vice president and this departed wildly self-overrating attorney general, and the others, from potential prosecution for having approved or ordered the illegal torture of prisoners being held in the name of this country.


Four retired generals weighed in on the matter [PDF]:

...We write because this issue above all demands clarity: Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal.

...This is a critically important issue - but it is not, and never has been, a complex issue, and even to suggest otherwise does a terrible disservice to this nation. All U.S. Government agencies and personnel, and not just America's military forces, must abide by both the spirit and letter of the controlling provisions of international law. Cruelty and torture - no less than wanton killing - is neither justified nor legal in any circumstance. ... Abu Ghraib and other notorious examples of detainee abuse have been the product, at least in part, of a self-serving and destructive disregard for the well-established legal principles applicable to this issue. This must end.


But will it end? Here's the punchline: the nomination of Mukasey for attorney general, after he could not, in the course of his role in covering the ass of George Bush and Dick Cheney, even admit to having thought about this question, has just been rubber-stamped by the Democrats.
sophiaserpentia: (Default)
We've been stunningly, brazenly betrayed twice by the Democrats in one day. First the advancement of the Mukasey nomination, virtually guaranteeing its passage. Then this, from bizarro world: Republicans voting to allow debate on the impeachment of Dick Cheney, and Democrats, terrified it will actually happen, vote against it:

House Democrats on Tuesday narrowly managed to avert a bruising debate on a proposal to impeach Dick Cheney after Republicans, in a surprise maneuver, voted in favor of taking up the measure.

Republicans, changing course midway through a vote, tried to force Democrats into a debate on the resolution sponsored by longshot presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich. The anti-war Ohio Democrat, in his resolution, accused Cheney of purposely leading the country into war against Iraq and manipulating intelligence about Iraq's ties with al-Qaida.

The GOP tactics reversed what had been expected to be an overwhelming vote to table, or kill, the resolution. Midway through the vote, with instructions from the GOP leadership, Republicans one by one changed their votes from yes — to kill the resolution — to no, trying to force the chamber into a debate and an up-or-down vote on the proposal.

from Debate on Cheney impeachment averted
sophiaserpentia: (Default)
In September, Joe Solmonese stood before a crowd of transfolk and promised, in no uncertain terms, that the Human Rights Campaign would unequivocally oppose any version of ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act) that did not include us.

Since then, Rep. Barney Frank pulled his support for the trans-inclusive ENDA and introduced his own, trans-exclusive, one. And the HRC wavered a bit, faking us out and stringing us along until finally, today, signing on to a letter reversing Solmonese's promise, not only endorsing the new trans-exclusive ENDA, but opposing the proposed amendment offered by Rep. Tammy Baldwin reinstating transgender rights to the bill.

This whole affair has been terribly painful for the trans activist community. We are only demanding our part of something into which we have poured our blood, sweat, and tears - not to mention our donation money and congressional lobbying efforts. For that, we have been attacked by gay, lesbian, and bisexual activists, who have called us selfish and divisive, and accused us of attempting to "trans-jack" the legislation.

We don't have any allies anymore. Who can we trust? Everyone hates the trannies. We're expendable. We're disposable. Our rights don't mean anything, we're something that can be traded away so the gays and lesbians can make a deal with the right wing.

Many bad words behind the cut. )

I feel better now.

Profile

sophiaserpentia: (Default)
sophiaserpentia

December 2021

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930 31 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 13th, 2025 03:53 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios