Friday, July 25, 2008


Love. What is love? Well the dictionary defines love as follows:
Main Entry: 1love
Pronunciation: 'l&v
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lufu; akin to Old High German luba love, Old English lEof dear, Latin lubEre, libEre to please
1 a (1) : strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties love for a child> (2) : attraction based on sexual desire : affection and tenderness felt by lovers (3) : affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests <love for his old schoolmates> b : an assurance of love love>
2 : warm attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion <love of the sea>
3 a : the object of attachment, devotion, or admiration love> b (1) : a beloved person : DARLING -- often used as a term of endearment (2) British -- used as an informal term of address
4 a : unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another: as (1) : the fatherly concern of God for humankind (2) : brotherly concern for others b : a person's adoration of God
5 : a god or personification of love
6 : an amorous episode : LOVE AFFAIR
7 : the sexual embrace : COPULATION
8 : a score of zero (as in tennis)
9 capitalized, Christian Science : GOD
Love is such an intense, complex, complicated emotion to define that even the dictionary has 9 different (though sort of the same) ways to describe it. But this doesn't really tell you what LOVE really is.
Love has no boundaries, at least it shouldn't if it is "real" love. You cannot limit love based on gender, color, age, religion, or status for that matter. So, this actually has me thinking, if love has no boundaries and you cannot control who you love, then who is to say that you cannot love more than one mate. Now, just hear me out. I am not saying that we ALL should take on multiple partners, or become polygamists or anything like that, just think about this with an open mind.
Love is a very complex emotion, and can be determined and felt in many different ways. I mean, we certainly do not love every person in the same way. We don't love our parents the same, we don't love our friends the same, and most parents (even though they will deny it) don't love their children the same. This isn't saying that we love one child more than the other, we just love them differently. We love them each for their own personalities. Now still keeping your mind open, transfer all of those emotions onto a "mate." Is there a reason, other than society's taboo, that we cannot fully love two mates, I mean obviously no two people are the same, so they can both bring you a very intense feeling of love, even though they may be different kinds of love. Just as we love our children for their individual traits, the same can be said for lovers.
Perhaps polyamorists/polygamists know something more about love and life than we do. Putting religious and societal convictions aside regarding marriage and union, these people are allowing themselves to love and be loved by more than one person, which one would think would give each individual a sense of feeling completely loved. I know there are times in my relationships where I feel that things are lacking, and despite open communication there are times when these voids cannot be filled by my one mate, whether it be because he is not capable of doing what I would like, or whether it be a time constraint, or the fact that he just really does not want to fulfill that need. And I am sure the same can be said for him as well. I am sure that I don't fulfill his every desire either, and finding another mate that would fulfill that could possibly make things better for all of us involved. Granted this would all have to be experiences with an open mind, because jealousy can be a cruel emotion.
Now, no bashing here. I realize that relationships are supposed to be a compromise, and on all the "important" issues it should be. This is what makes a relationship work. But what about on the not so "important" issues, like going to the theater or the ballet, or certain hobbies and things. Why not spare your one "mate" the agony of attending these, as spare yourself the lack of enthusiasm (and possibly the following arguement) by attending this with another "mate" who enjoys it?
Ok...say I wiki'd love as well...and this is what wiki has to say about it:

The definition of love is the subject of considerable debate, enduring speculation, and thoughtful introspection. In ordinary use, love usually refers to interpersonal love, an experience felt by a person for another person. Love often involves caring for or identifying with a person or thing, including oneself (cf. narcissism). Dictionaries tend to define love as deep affection or fondness.[1] In colloquial use, according to polled opinion, the most favoured definitions of love involve altruism, selflessness, friendship, union, family, and bonding or connecting with another.[6]
The different aspects of love can be roughly illustrated by comparing their corollaries and opposites. As a general expression of positive sentiment (a stronger form of like), love is commonly contrasted with hate (or neutral apathy); as a less sexual and more mutual and "pure" form of romantic attachment, love is commonly contrasted with lust; and as an interpersonal relationship with romantic overtones, love is commonly contrasted with friendship, although other connotations of love may be applied to close friendships as well.
More on it here....LoveNow I know it is talking about lust here, but that is not what I am talking about. Yes, I know many people get love and lust confused. But what I am talking about is fully loving two or more people. I don't want to bring religion or societal taboo into this, just your heart and emotions. Granted many outside influences affect how we personally view things, which is why I like to look at everything with an open mind, and that's all I am asking of you. Look at this with an open mind, a completely open mind. What are your feelings on this?

Babies, Bush, Bullets, Bombs and some Babbling..another from MySpace @ Oct 2007

No Faith=No Moral...June 2007

No Faith=No Morals?
I have been meaning to blog about this for quite sometime (I know Danielle, get off my back * but have been trying to find the right words to get my point across. Not sure these are the "right" words, but here I go anyway.
The subject of this actually came about because Matt's mother asked me to help her out with a topic for her philosophy class. The question that she needed an answer to was: If a person has no religion, does that make them an immoral person? Ok...and for those of you who DO know about Matt's mom then you should know her answer to this....and if you KNOW me you should also know that we DON'T see eye to eye on this one. But, the topic has been brought up on several other occassions as being the latest one and being that it is all fresh in my mind. I will sit here and blog about it. (You all know that I LOVE to blog about "hot button" topics.) lol
By definition morality is as follows:
Morality (from Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behaviour") refers to the concept of human action which pertains to matters of right and wrong—also referred to as "good and evil"—used within three contexts: individual conscience; systems of principles and judgments—sometimes called moral values—shared within a cultural, religious, secular or philosophical community; and codes of behavior or conduct morality
So the point that Matt's mother was trying to make is that if you do not follow "God's word" you are immoral (or in other words evil). But according to "God's word" you should not judge, Though I have found myself in many situations that I am being judged on my unconventional lifestyle, and honestly in almost every one of these situations the judgement is being passed by a Christian. Which is just another example of the hypocrisy within the Christian religion. I have found that Christianity sort of follows a 'do as I say, not as I do' mindset.
Generally speaking, Christian parents are preaching to their children that they should love all persons equally, but yet on the other hand they are dismissing a gay person's right to wed. Many Christians frown upon homosexuality saying that "God" feels that homosexuality is a sin, but yet "God" teaches us to love each other equally. Well how is that so if homosexuality is a sin. A person cannot help who they fall in love with.
Still generally speaking Christian parents preach to their children that you should not judge another. But yet these same people are passing judgement based on the unknown. I understand that people fear the unknown, but just educate yourself before passing judgement. Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying that I have never passed judgement, because certainly I have. I would be lying if I told you otherwise. I like to think I am pretty non-judgemental (and I think some people will vouch for that as well) and for the most part I will give anybody the benefit of the doubt. I base my judgement on the way that a person carries themselves and through their actions rather than just by their lifestyle. I have friends from very different walks of life, some are conservative Christians, some are liberal atheists but the wonderful thing about that is that they are all open minded and non judgemental and realize that people can be different, and have different beliefs but still be respectful of each other.
I am sure that any parent, not just Christian parents, strive to instill these same values in their children. But I think this is where I differ. I do not preach to my children, we do not attend a church, nor do we speak of "God" in our house. But that does not mean that I don't instill morals in my children.. My children have never heard me put somebody down based on their lifestyle, and I will try my hardest to keep it that way. They realize that everybody on this Earth is different and that is what makes it wonderful. I am also trying to teach my children that it is ok to be different. And for the most part I think I am succeeding. I have raised some wonderfully, free thinking children who have their own opinions and will stand by their convictions. And I can only hope that it will continue throughout their adult lives....AND I have done all of this through being an example of how a person should act, not by preaching a book of man made stories to them. Now if this makes me evil or immoral than so be it. But I think that many people can attest to the fact that I am not an evil person and my children aren't heathens. In fact, I am sure that people can vouch for what exciting, independent, strong, free thinking WONDERFUL children that I do have.

Out of the Closet... June 2007

n today's society hiding in the closet when you are "out of the norm" is quite the "norm" ironically, and this weekend confirmed that for me. Dawson, Kyley, and I went to visit visit a friend and her family this weekend and Dawson and Z (my friend's son who is the same age as Dawson) had quite the interesting conversation, which actually sparked the thought for this blog. So the setting is....we(Dawson, Z, and I are in the tent in the backyard (it was National Backyard Campout Day on Saturday, did you know that?), and Dawson was wanting to go sit out of the tent, and I asked why and he really didn't answer, so I was kind of figuring that he was wanting to nurse but wasn't sure what Z would think. So I whispered to him, do you want to go outside to have "boob"? And he said yes....I said...just roll over and you can have some. And he said...wait...and the conversation goes as follows: (It reminded me of an AA meeting or
D: "Z" how old are you?
Z: I am 5.
D: Do you drink boob?
(apparently Z didn't really hear correctly...or was unsure of what Dawson was talking about)
Z: Ya I drink it.
D: Oh good...Me too.
Then Dawson apparently satisfied with the fact that he is not "abnormal" rolls over and nurses to sleep.
Ok...this is HORRIBLE that a 5 year old feels the need to hide the fact that he is still nursing for fear of what other's will say or do to him. We have been in quite a few situations over the past 2 years or so where people approach him and ridicule him for nursing, usually telling him that he is "too big" or "that's gross" or "that's for babies"
We, as Americans, are pressured into hiding in the closet sometimes in fear of our lives for being different. Society can be so evil and hateful especially when faced with people who walk outside of the mainstream line.

Sticks and Stones.. June 2007

Ok, now I am sure that we have all been in a situation in which somebody has said something or called you something that was a bit offensive. But why? I know that we have all heard the childhood adage, 'Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.' You are the only person that can determine whether or not a word/saying is hurtful. There was a discussion about this after the whole Imus situation. I think that children today are less phased by supposedly hurtful/vulgar words. I know that I am. Words only have the power to hurt if you GIVE them that power. Granted some words can be spoken harshly, but I think the tone of speech is more hurtful than the actual words said. Anything said in anger is hurtful, but those same words said in jest are not as hurtful.
On another note, I had a conversation about the fact that I allow my children to use any word they would like as long as they know the meaning of it and they are not allowed to use the word in any derrogatory context. I guess this comes from my liberal "out of the box" parenting style, but I don't see the harm in it. Now this doesn't mean that my children are using these words every other word, but occassionally you will hear them same 'sh1t' or '@ss' and I don't see the big deal. Why are these words considered "bad"? Any answers??? I have even looked up the etymology on these words and could not find an answer. Apparently a lot of these, @ss, f*ck, etc have all been commonly used without the vulgarity behind it through out history. Hmmmm another one of society's f*ck ups....(sorry for the coding...not sure if myspace will allow it with the actual typed wording)

Coming of Age...From Aug 2007

*sigh....The time has come, my baby girl has officially made the transition into "womanhood." It seems like just yesterday that I had this precious baby girl, who needed her mother for everything, wrapped up in my arms staring into her vibrant blue eyes as she suckled at my breast, as the minutes passed and her tummy filled up, her eyes would grow weary and she would nod off with the tiniest drop of milk dripping out of the side of her mouth. I would stare at her angelic face for what seemed like hours after she drifted off to sleep, wanting to capture every moment of her life and embed it deep in my memory. These memories soon would be all I had to cherish as the precious little angel that was lying in my arms would soon become a woman.
I knew that this moment would come at some point, but I still feel like I am not ready for this.The time comes in every parents' life when their child must grow and spread their wings and eventually fly off into their own life.This seems to have all come at such warp speed that I feel totally unprepared for the years ahead of me. I have always taken pride in the fact that I have allowed my children to grow and flourish into unique individuals while watching, encouraging, and guiding from the sidelines.
As I watch my beautiful baby girl begin this amazing journey into young womanhood, I can't help but get emotional. It doesn't seem like that long ago that I watched and encouraged her to let go of my hand and take her 1st wobbly steps across the kitchen floor in her favorite Barney footed sleeper. She would take a step or two and then reach back for me, so that she could steady herself. After many attempts on her part she decided it was time to go and took off giggling and waddling across the floor. She was off and wasn't looking back, I sat back and watched as she gained more confidence with each step. I saw her start to stagger a bit and I knew the fall was coming. I wanted to reach out to her and protect her from the fall, but I watched her slow her steps and attempt to steady herself on her feet. When she fell I sat back and just encouraged her to get up and try it again. I knew then that I would not be there to save her from every "fall" throughout her life. As much as I want to preserve the innocence of my children and protect them from the "falls", I know that is not reality.
Even though she shed the Barney sleeper years ago, her wobbly steps became confident strides, and the need for my hand to "steady" her has diminished it will always be there for her when she needs it. I am now sitting here staring at this outgoing, confident young lady curled up on the couch fast asleep wondering where the time has gone. There are times that I wish we could trade in the talks about boys and feminine hygiene for singing all of those horrific Barney songs that I loathed years ago. But I know the time has come to allow this transition to naturally take its course and prepare for what the future holds. I am sure than in 20 years time as I am watching my baby girl bring her own baby in to this world (if she chooses that is) I will look back at this "milestone" and wonder what the big deal was, just as I sit here today and wonder why I was so emotional on that day that she let go of my hand in her Barney sleeper.

Love or not... 2007

Love or not....
Current mood: tired
Category: Romance and Relationships
So as with all of my other blogs, this topic was brought on by a conversation at work. I love making people actually think. The question at hand was/is what is the difference between loving somebody and being "in love" with somebody? The answer that I was given was that when you are in love with somebody it is an intimate and sexual feeling whereas loving somebody is just about caring for them, nuturing them, and not wanting to see anything bad happen to that person. Which means if this is true then my blog about Love is TRUE, a person CAN fully love more than one person.
I questioned this by asking, being in love is about the sexual intimacy does that mean that EVERYBODY that you have had sex with you were "in love" with? Which of course the answer was no, I think people are confusing being "in love" with somebody as romance or lust, sexually speaking.
I personally think that when somebody says 'I love him, but I am not "in love" with him." is a cop out because of the stipulation that society has placed upon us (as a whole). Polygamy is illegal in every state in the US because our laws are based upon fundamentalist Christian beliefs. Granted polygamy is speaking of marriage to more than one person, but this carries over to a committed relationship as well because of the way society is. If a person were to pronounce their love for two people they would be shamed and condemned by much of society. So, we have come up with a way around that by using the term "in love" as a way around people thinking that we actually love two people.
Love is love, no matter how you put it. Yes there are varying types of love, but it is still love. No two loves are the same, no matter how you look at it. One person does not EVER love a person the same as another. I love my children differently, I love Matt differently that I love my children, and I love him differently than I have ever loved another lover in my life and I am sure that if the time ever cam that I found somebody else I wouldn't love them the same as I love Matt. Love is a generalized word....and it is just that a word, the emotion and feeling that you put behind it is up to you. Everybody views love differently.
As for the sexual aspect of things, intercourse is typically seen as a way of strengthening a bond between the persons engaging in intercourse, but in reality it is just a way of sharing pleasure, just like if I were to share a piece of chocolate or cheesecake. Or to share in a pleasurable activity with one of my children. A person engages in a pleasurable activity because it feels good...and let's face it, in most instances intercourse feels good no matter if there is love involved or not.

Marriage's been awhile since I have blogged, and the topic of marriage was brought up yesterday so I thought, well damn, here is the perfect opportunity to get back into it. So let me give you a little background.
Matt and I have been together 11 years now and have 2 children together, but we are not married. He asked 10 yrs ago when I was pregnant with our 1st child (together). I have a child from a previous relationship. I turned him down at that point. His mother had a lot to do with the reason he asked I thought, and still do think that but that's beside the point. I told him then, if he could give me one, JUST ONE, valid reason as to why we should marry then I would. It was simple I thought. I wasn't asking for a lot. So, over the years marriage really wasn't a topic of conversation. I had figured that he had finally realized my point, that marriage is just an outdated religious ritual for people to show their "god"/community that they "love" each other. If you are married, don't take offense. If you feel strongly enough that you wanted to be married that's fine. It's your choice. This is just MY personal take on the subject. But I was wrong, we have been having some pretty intense relationship issues over the past 2 months or so. And yesterday he said to me, "This is all your fault. You could change this you know." At this point I was confused, though I shouldn't have been because according to him I am the controller of the entire universe. I control the weather (in times of bad weather when there is something that he can't/won't crazy heat wave that we had a few weeks ago was because I wanted to ruin the 1st weekend of archery season.) So next time you are pissed at the weather, just blame me because apparently I have total control over it. Anyway, I asked him what he meant. And he said, "Just remember that all those years ago, you rejected me." Ok, so the reason that he has trouble prioritizing and making any attempt at working on this relationship is because I won't marry him. I told him that I didn't quite understand this logic. Apparently because I won't agree to take part in this "ritual" means that I am not commited to this relationship, commited to living life together as a couple, commited to this family. Ok, so let me get this straight. In order to "prove" that I am commited, I have to present in front of "god", which mind you is an idea that I don't believe, and he questions as well. I was having trouble understanding this logic, so I wiki'd Marriage Dang I love wiki !! And the definition of marriage is as follows.

Marriage is an interpersonal relationship with governmental, social, or religious recognition, usually intimate and sexual, and often created as a contract, or through civil process.
The reasons people marry vary, but usually include one or more of the following: legal, social and economic stability; the formation of a family unit; procreation and the education and nurturing of children; legitimizing sexual relations; public declaration of love.
Breaking down this definition, marriage brings governmental recognition, ok, exactly what kind of recognition because shoot I like to stay as far under the radar with the government as I can. All joking aside though I am assuming they are talking about recognition in regard to taxes. You supposedly get a bigger tax break if you are married and I can disprove this theory. It  has always worked out better for us regarding taxes with us NOT being married, health insurance purposes, again....I can disprove this as well. I am on Matt's health insurance as his "partner" and have had no issues with that., and in the event of a death the spouse has rights to material/monetary possessions of the deceased and a will can fix that problem. Also listing your partner/children as the beneficiary on any life insurance policies. Problem solved there. So I think that takes care of governmental issues. If you can think of something else...let me know so I can disprove that as well *wink
Social recognition. Back in the 1900's marriage was a way to increase power and wealth, as well as a way to bring peace to feuding families. Marriages were based upon responsiblity and wealth of the family unit, not love. In today's society this is no longer the way things are done, marriages are based on love rather than responsibility to the family unit, for the most part. So the need for social recognition due to a marriage contract is completely outdated. For those that disagree PLEASE tell me what I sort of social recognition I would get if I presented myself as married. Seriously.
So this brings us to the religious aspect of the marriage, which in my opinion, is one of the only reasons, along with mainstream society, as to why people feel the need to be married anymore. A large part of the American culture is based on Christianity, (Stay tuned for another blog specifically on this) So therefore many people feel the need to stand in front of "god" and their families and announce their devotion and commitment to each other. In the eyes of the Christian church marriage is a sacred institution established by God for the primary purpose of bringing Him glory. Its main purpose is not, as some think, to procreate, or to have companionship, or to fulfill sexual needs. Its primary purpose is to bring glory and honor to God. It is only in marriage that we are able to carry out the commission of God to replenish the earth and to subdue it. This commission by God can only be properly accomplished in marriage where the husband and wife, in faithful, covenantal relationship, purpose to glorify God by having children, training them in the ways of the Lord, and sending them out into the world. This is what marriage is for.
(Link above it is a link to one of the articles that I was reading)
After much research from different websites I have found the above statement to be the basis of marriage through Christian followers. Marriage is not meant to be solely about personal enlightment and happiness, but rather about bringing "god" happiness and glory because as a devout married Christian couple, the church and "god" are under the assumption that you are going to procreate and live the "word of god", training your children to live the "word of god" and then in turn be married and have children of their own to continue teaching the "word of god."
So with all that being said, I still stand my ground. Marriage is an outdated religious ritual in which unless you are a follower of "god" I feel that there isn't a valid reason as to why one should marry. Does this mean that I am not commited to the relationship that I am in? No, I am commited to my family and the relationship that I am in. In the time it has taken me to write this blog I have researched quite a bit on this topic, and have come across many interesting facts and opinions on the history of marriage and marriage today. I feel that as we progress intellectually as a society, many ideas/laws become outdated, but being a tradition based society we refuse to allow our stance on certain ideas/laws to progress as well. (more on this in the Christianity blog soon to follow)