Seizing the Joy and Spontaneity of Every Day

Our lives can be so serious and morose (I say this with trepidation as April 15 approaches quickly; how about an IRS audit as "serious"?). There is an endless list of tragedy and grave conditions, locally and around the world. (I won't even begin the list.) How do we cope? For me, it is a combination of faith and humor, to extract the joy of everyday living.

We tend to think that life is a series of major "events" - births, graduations, weddings, funerals. We devote much time and energy into these events. I would not diminish the relevance of these major events; but I think "life" happens in between these major events. Life happens in both our regular routines and the aspect of serendipity.

The other day, I picked up my daughter from after-school care, to discover that they were celebrating one of the teacher's birthdays by throwing cream pies in his face. The teacher had graciously agreed to this (actually, knowing this teacher, I think he encouraged this idea). The kids took turns throwing cream pies at his face, to the great amusement of all (especially the teacher). Seeing the kids (and other adults) regale with laughter brought out a sense of joy amongst everybody there. It's little moments like these that are worth seizing whenever they evolve in front of us.

Or how about that complement you get from a colleague? Or that peck on the cheek you give your spouse as you run out the door? Or the joke you share with two friends at lunch? Or the wave you exchange with your neighbor? Or the brief conversation you share with another parishioner after church? Are these insipid instances that don't "matter"? No, in fact I think each one matters a lot. Each one can evoke a sense of joy if we let it.

Our grasp on life is tenuous. The Japanese have a phrase, "Mono no aware," which essentially describes the awareness of the _transience of life_ and a sadness of its passing. We can mitigate the sadness by seizing the joy of everyday, "little" events.

"Wherever You Go, There You Are"

"So, the cross is always ready and waits for you everywhere. You cannot escape it no matter where you run, for wherever you go you are burdened with yourself. Wherever you go, there you are." —Thomas a Kempis, Imitation of Christ, ca. A.D. 1440

This quote seems to be particularly relevant to our American way of life, which is very oriented around "mobility." We've always appreciated adventure and liberty; the ability to just "pull up stakes" and make a "fresh start" elsewhere. This idea that we'll go wherever we "need" to go to pursue education, or a new career, or retirement, or a lover.

But no matter how "mobile" we become, we cannot escape our respective selves. No change of scenery, no matter how radically the departure from our current scenery, will ever free us from ourselves. Have you ever thought, "...if I could just change jobs, go to a different school, move to a new city, find a new boyfriend/girlfriend, it would solve all my problems..."? Actually, if only it were that simple. The truth is, our innner lives, our mental and emotional patterns, have just as much to do with our state of mind as our external lives.

Remember this before you decide to make a radical departure.

Quick "Kinsey Scale" Test

For a more serious post on the Kinsey Scale, see "The Fluidity of Desire" below.

For a more humorous angle, take this quiz to determine whether you're a "0" or a "6" (or somewhere in between) on the Kinsey Scale:

Question: whom would you rather meet on a movie set, seduce, and then indulge in a wildly inappropriate yet satisfying tryst: Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt?

A) Angelina
B) Brad
C) Angelina and Brad
D) It depends on how well we bond during the seduction
E) Neither; beauty is only skin deep


Your answer will give you some clue as to where you might fall on the Kinsey Scale. (Chances are, you already have a pretty good idea.)

;-)

The Absurdity of the Anti-Gay Marriage Agenda

The Right's vehement opposition to "gay marriage" is fundamentally flawed (that is, if you want to apply logic). How in the world does my monogamous, domestic partnership with a woman negatively impact a straight couple's marriage? I completely fail to see how the union of a same-sex couple in any way jeopardizes or inhibits that of straight couples. If anything, gay couples who want to "commit" to monogamous, domestic relationships should be lauded by the Right as "correct" family values. Therein lies the fierce irony. If "we" (gay couples) want to act just like "them" (straight couples) and commit ourselves to life-long monogamy, we are vilified?????

I think it has more to do with family structure. Many gay couples have taken the leap of faith to have children (either biologically or adopting). I say it is a "leap of faith" because the world is still unsure on whether it wants to embrace "gay families" as legitimate. The Right characterizes gay families as illegitimate. Yet, what exactly is a "family"? A "family" unit is built on a foundation of mutual love and respect. How is "love and respect" wrong?

If the Right's opposition to gay marriage were truly authentic, they would instead channel their energies toward outlawing divorce. For divorce, surely, is anathema to the Right's marriage-loving agenda, right?

The Fluidity of Desire

"...The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects." - Alfred Kinsey

Alfred Kinsey's groundbreaking work in research on sexual behavior and response was a turning point in terms of how we might understand ourselves. Kinsey's research yielded very compelling data that said that people are not necessarily exclusively "gay" or "straight," but instead fall on a seven-point scale that accommodates nuance and various degrees:

• 0 - Exclusively heterosexual
• 1 - Predominately heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
• 2 - Predominately heterosexual, but more that incidentally homosexual
• 3 - Equally heterosexual and homosexual
• 4 - Predominately homosexual, but more that incidentally heterosexual
• 5 - Predominately homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
• 6 - Exclusively homosexual

This scale is fascinating to me because of its ambiguity; just what does it mean? As an English major, I immediately start parsing the words; "incidentally" homosexual? What does that mean? To me, it's all about desire; that is, whom do we find appealing as a sexual partner? If "incidental" is "not intentional," what does this tell us about our orientations and attitudes? Does this mean if I'm a "5" on the Kinsey scale, I might "unintentionally" find a man attractive as a sexual partner? Is "intention" pertinent?


I think what it might indicate is that we all have an "innate" sexual orientation, that drives our attraction to others as sexual partners. (I strongly believe that our orientation is deeply intrinsic, and that we cannot ever be "cured" of homosexuality.) The gradation is in terms of how "potent" or "powerful" that orientation is, within the context of how "open-minded" we might be about potential sexual partners.

The real beauty of the Kinsey scale is that it reflects the ambiguity, the shades of gray (not just the black-and-white), the nuances, the messiness of life; the very fluidity of identity. It acknowledges that people evolve and grow and sometimes experience new feelings, especially if they maintain an open mind and an open heart. The Kinsey scale extols the idea that "real" life is not as restrictive or as neatly defined as our cultural, social and ethical mores might dictate.


I remember at the 1993 "March on Washington" for Gay, Lesbian, Bi, Trans rights, there was a film crew there, asking people, "how did you know you were gay?" People had all kinds of elaborate stories about this and that. And then one woman summed it up quite succinctly, I think: "Because I fell in love (with a woman)." While I firmly believe that sexual orientation is a deeply innate human characteristic, I also believe that for people who are neither a "0" nor a "6" on the Kinsey scale, that individual people we meet can sway us one way or the other. I love this concept, because to me it reveals that "desire" is not exclusively "sexual" - that desire and attraction are imbued with a whole host of characteristics and elements, some of which remain mysterious.

Lesbian "Mythbusters"

The "Mythbusters" are two guys (Jamie Hyneman and Adam Savage) that basically take it upon themselves to debunk myths. (They have a show on the Discovery Channel.) According to Wikipedia, Jamie and Adam "...use their skills and expertise to test the validity of various rumors and urban legends in popular culture." They are like truth seekers; they like to challenge what people just accept as "true." Well, here's my attempt at debunking some "lesbian" myths:

• "Lesbians hate men"

Ugh, I hate this myth. We do NOT hate men! Some of our best friends are men! Many of us actually adore men! Our families are filled with wonderful men: ever heard of fathers, brothers, sons, uncles, and cousins? Now, some lesbians might hate men; but some straight women hate men, too. Most lesbians are perfectly fine with liking men; it's just that we don't want to have sex with them. It's really that simple. From there, it just depends on the individual relationship we have with each given man.


• "Lesbians are strange; I don't know any lesbians!"

The fact is, lesbians span the broad spectrum of humanity. You may have convinced yourself that you don't know any lesbians, but unless you live in a remote corner of the earth and are strictly home-bound, you probably know at least one lesbian. Enjoy!


• "Lesbians are so severe-looking; they shave their heads!"

Well, yes, some lesbians do shave their heads. And ride Harleys (ever heard of "Dykes on Bikes"?). And have multiple tatoos and piercings, and wouldn't be caught dead wearing anything but black and chains. Then there are those average-looking, regular, every day (boring) lesbians, that blend right into the crowd. Again, that "broad spectrum of humanity" thing. (Oh, and have you ever heard of Britney Spears? She shaved her head, and last I heard, she's not a lesbian.)


• "Lesbians are ugly and are gay because they can't get a man"

I can't bring myself to even address this myth. Would you characterize Portia di Rossi as "ugly"? Anyway, just remember that the cliche of beauty being in the "eye of the beholder" is true.


• "Lesbians are butch and really good with power tools"

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I'm going to sound like a broken record: it's that "broad spectrum of humanity" thing again. Yes, some lesbians are good with power tools and wear fannie packs because it reminds them of their toolbelts. But for some other lesbians, this is their idea of a toolkit:





















• "In lesbian relationships, one of them plays the 'man'"

Are people that limited in their range of thinking that a 'man/woman' coupling is the only viable relationship model? The fact is, each lesbian brings to the relationship what she brings to the relationship. Yes, some are "butch" and some are "femme" - but these are overly used stereotypes; we don't all fit neatly into a category of "butch" or "femme". Actually, I'm more convinced that each of us (that is, each person - not just each lesbian) has both "butch" and "femme" characteristics.


• "Lesbian couples experience 'bed death'"

This myth basically implies that lesbian couples completely stop having sex. Well, yes, probably some do. But this circumstance is certainly not unique to lesbian couples. Many straight couples suffer through droughts as well. If I were a betting woman, I'd bet that more lesbian couples would be willing to cope with a celibate relationship than straight couples, which may be the cause of the 'bed death' label for lesbians. But I have a theory, that has nothing to do with sexual orientation, that 99.99% of break-ups (regardless of whether it's a straight or gay couple) are caused by difficulties in the bedroom combined with an unwillingness of one or both parties to strive to fix it.


• "Lesbians want to have sex with every woman they meet"

Where do these myths come from? This one is completely absurd. No, we don't want to sleep with every woman we meet. As an analogy, do straight women want to sleep with every man they meet? Actually, this is a very personal thing for each person (regardless of sexual orientation). Yes, some lesbians might have a particular penchant to get to know lots of women on a sexual basis. But you know what? I bet there are some straight men that fit into this category as well.


• "Lesbians can't have children"

Total myth; the efficacy of lesbians' reproductive systems is the exact same as straight women's. In fact, there is a veritable baby boom of lesbians having biological children. (I got pregnant on the very first try; and I don't like to call it "artificial" insemination, because technically there's nothing "artificial" about the actual insemination.)

Any more myths you'd like me to bust? Let me know, I'd be glad to.


Anyway, have you noticed any trends in all these "myths"? Stereotypes are a convenient vehicle for diminishing our humanity. Lesbians may be this or that (or may not be), but I'd like to underscore that we are human and so are as varied and unique as the rest of humanity.