With Mothers’ Day impending (based, at least, on the large number of restaurant ads invading my email inbox), this thought: Yes, some people have fraught relationships with their mothers; others’ mothers are no longer in their lives for a variety of reasons.

This year, if you fall into one of those categories (as I do), why not adopt a mother? Sure, it could be someone who has played a significant mentorship role in your life, or someone who is an acquaintance but provides mothering to others.

This year, I am choosing to adopt Mother Earth, and celebrate Mothers’ Day in, with, and supporting nature. After all, mothering is where you find it.

(Now I just have to figure out how to take an entire forest to brunch.)

This past weekend, I attended (for the first time) a Beltane celebration.

One of my partners and her husband give many presentations at such events, and had done one last year on understanding and expressing one’s fantasies. It was the first class at the event, held before most attendees arrived. Six people attended.

What the attendees may have not realized is that once they described their fantasy, and with their acquiescence, the organizers would make it come true at some point during the weekend, if at all possible. So there was detailed discussion of each; boundaries, logistics, attendees both desired and not, and much more. Four scenes were held, to the delight of all.

This year, anticipating there might be a little more traffic as a result of the previous year’s success, I was invited along to help with infrastructure of setting up the fantasy scenes. A good thing, too; this year 18 people attended, and nine decided that they had fantasies worth having a scene to fulfill. As there were 2 1/2 days available to get it all done, that posed quite a few logistical challenges– but that challenge isn’t the point of this discussion.

What was striking about the fantasies –- and remember, this is at a sex-positive event where pretty much anything was allowed on the table or under it -– is that with one exception, the desired scenes really didn’t seem like sexual fantasies. They were much more therapeutic in nature.

Most had to do with the loss of control or responsibility in one way or another, relief from the demands of carrying daily loads. Several were about receiving touch, unencumbered by obligation to return the favor. (“I am a giver who needs to learn how to receive” was a common theme.) One woman had had recent major surgery, and needed help feeling comfortable in her body. One woman just wanted words of affirmation written on her body; another woman wanted men to approach her and ask her to do things while she learned to say “no” comfortably.

Of course, the line between sexual fantasy and therapy can be a narrow one. A number of them seemed to be trying to clear out of the way things that were blocking their comfortable sexual expression, so the expressed fantasy may have been a first step on the road to an ultimate one.

But it says quite a lot about the world we live in that, when given free rein to play, people overwhelmingly opted first for comfort and stress relief. They passed up the table full of free candy and asked for broccoli. These are hard times.

(By the way, all but one of the desired scenes was accomplished, and there were many happy tears, if not many “happy endings” in the usual sense. But it was a pleasure and honor to help people get what they needed. I just wish we could all be closer to getting what we want rather than just what we need.)

Disclaimer: I am not immune. The partner who was running the session, when speaking with a man who said he needed to learn how to receive, pointed across the room at me and said, “I want him in the room because he needs to learn that too.“

@Essie13 asked a good question. (That’s one of the hot things she does.)

What makes a partner different from a friend?

Some people won’t care about that. They don’t like or use labels for relationships, or have wide definitions rather than taxonomies. That can be a comfortable way to live.

For those who do distinguish, though, the line between friendship (with or without benefits) and partnership can be an important one in establishing boundaries for behavior, when planning future activities, in setting goals or aspirations for a relationship… and so much more.

So what makes a partner?

Is it sex? No, because I can (and do) have romantic relationships with partners in which there is no sex. And I can and do have sex with people I enjoy and care about, but do not consider partners.

Is it frequency of visitation? No, because I have partners I see two or three times a year, and friends I see far more often.

For me, at least, partnership occurs when a romantic relationship exists–a non-obligatory exchange of Big-L ”I love you”; when there is commitment to developing and expanding the relationship; and when you include that person in your life planning. Decisions about where to live, for example, take that person into account.

One clear sign of partnership is the change from finding time in the schedule to be together to moving other things to create that time.

And a partnership is mutual. One may never be certain whether someone we call a friend feels the same way about us; it’s a term that covers a range of relationships and emotions. Partnerships, though, perhaps because they are defined at base by mutual support and regard, exist only when there is common and avowed commitment.

Friends can go very different directions and eventually wind up at the same place. Partners tend to travel together.

Beyond that, as Potter Stewart said of pornography: “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.” Or, more likely, feel it.

Q:I would be very interested to hear more about “Parallel Polyamory” and how that actually works in an ethical and compassionate way.

A: Gladly! I have been in a relationship structured this way for 31 years. My nesting partner and I date separately; our other partners know about each other, but don’t necessarily interact, and we don’t come together as one big group… well, ever.

So long as information is flowing, it works. There is no reason to force my partners to be friends with each other, or for them to come to know my metamours. They form the relationships that they want to, because each person is the center of their own poly constellation. They are aware of the whole thing, and can thus make informed decisions about how to participate.

For some people, kitchen table poly, focused on the group, is a preferred way to go. There can be a comfort in a large, warm, connected set of relationships. Parallel poly, on the other hand, focuses on the autonomy of each individual and their ability to form whatever relationship they want, independent of the others. It can certainly work for those so inclined.

Yes, it is a bit confusing from a geometric perspective. But the parallel part refers to a couple – as in, “I am dating and YOU are dating, but WE are not dating as a unit.” Think of it more like the electrical conception of parallel circuits rather than the geometric one. In a serial circuit, all the bulbs are connected in sequence, so they all have to light before the last one can go on. (Ask anyone who has tried to fix old-fashioned Christmas lights.)

In a parallel circuit, one is not dependent on the others. It gets its own power and can connect to any of the others or none. And so it is with parallel poly; it’s a different way to light your tree.

When your birthday-eve dream is of being dominated into relaxation, it might suggest that life needs a little rearranging. (Proper self-care shouldn’t require force majeure.)

Sexuality is usually portrayed in the mainstream media as sensational or tawdry or some combination of the above. That’s why it’s rewarding to note the exceptions.

NPR broadcast an unusually mature and thoughtful discussion of polyamory today (not surprising, given some of the panelists.) If you want to peek into how it really works, as opposed to some of the “reality” TV versions, give a listen here: https://the1a.org/audio/#/shows/2019-02-18/polyamory/116911/@00:00

“Hey, baby, are you an unobligated appropriation? Because there’s a national emergency in my pants.“

There are a lot of challenges in maintaining multiple relationships. One of the trickier bits, it seems to me, is when partners’ needs for intimacy and presence don’t match. 

I am not someone who needs regular in-person time to maintain a feeling of intimacy. (If I were, my long-distance relationships would be impossible.) By contrast, one of my local partners needs time every few days to maintain that familiarity.

That could work out fine if your constellation of relationships includes people with different time requirements. But if they all need frequent in-person time to maintain the relationship, you’re going to wind up polysaturated much sooner. And if you are someone who needs frequent time, choosing partners with fewer existing commitments becomes a must.

If someone else needs more time than you do, they can seem greedy. If someone wants to give less time than you think you need, they can feel distant.

Everyone has different abilities to give time and different requirements for having it. And those abilities and requirements can change as other parts of their life change. Managing those different needs within the amount of time available is one of the most challenging parts of polyamory.

To keep track of my travel, I use TripIt, an app that helpfully brings all my plans together in one place.

Recently, they introduced a new feature – safety ratings for one’s destinations. Today, however, they upgraded that to include specific ratings for LGBTQ safety in neighborhoods around the world.

It’s a shame that such a thing is needs to exist, but kudos to them for thinking of it. Now, let’s all keep working to help make it obsolete.

(Their pitch here: http://bit.ly/2QrB33I)

It’s an increasingly challenging time to be an adult on social media. Facebook’s new community guidelines and Tumblr’s elimination of all adult content promise to limit open discussion of common topics, sharing safety information, and building community. And these are but the most recent restrictions.

These moves aren’t a surprise. Rather, they are the logical consequence of two recently-passed laws in the U.S. Known as SESTA and FOSTA, these acts ostensibly intended to curb sex trafficking, but were accidentally or deliberately written so broadly that they appear to make normal adult conversations actionable.

Moreover, these laws make social media sites responsible for the content their users post. Because of that responsibility, the Facebooks and Verizon/Oath/Tumblrs of the world are suddenly more vulnerable to legal action — and their response is to protect themselves through the recent changes of policy. But that new legal responsibility means that petitions and other traditional pressures are unlikely to have even their usual effect.

Fortunately, someone is doing something to make a difference — to change the underlying laws that have led us to this chilling situation. The Woodhull Freedom Foundation, long an advocate for adults’ rights, is leading a group of plaintiffs suing the government to get those laws rolled back.

Of course, fighting the government isn’t easy. They’ve got some backing, but this effort promises to be long and difficult. I’m helping the good guys trying to defend and restore your rights; if you can help too, please do. The cavalry is coming, but they need our support.

Back them here: https://www.woodhullfoundation.org. And thank you.

The difference between “I want you to be mine“ and “I want to be with you” is profound, even if the latter is harder to fit on a candy heart.

This guest post comes from the soon-to-be sexual wasteland known as Tumblr. HypnoBunny is a presenter on and practitioner of erotic (and other kinds of) hypnosis. But she has written a fine disquisition on the male member that I am leery of reprinting in its entirety, but which you can read >>>here<<<.  It’s an appreciation that people of any gender can enjoy.  I know I do!

Should your dating partners be within a certain age range?

We’ve all heard the “rule” that suggests partners be at least half your age plus seven years, and no more than your age minus seven, then doubled. (I was told there would be no math.) But this is like the rules about wearing certain color clothes after Labor Day, or acceptable dress styles for older women; somewhat dubious of provenance and based on more on managing societal perceptions than value for a particular person.

The actual optimal age range for a partner can depend on the nature of the relationship one wants; it’s probably easier to interact over a long term with someone relatively close in life stage. But not every relationship is about that.

People of very different ages may have common interests and attitudes, but in other ways — values, cultural references, outside obligations, libido — may be quite different. That’s true of any two people, of course, but a significant age difference can add to the disconnections.

But this is another of those places where the answer may be different for monogamous and polyamorous people. If you’re trying to have all your needs met by one relationship, the differences introduced by age can get in the way. But if you are able to enjoy just those parts of a relationship that you have in common, and find others to meet the remaining needs, an age difference in any one relationship becomes rather less important.

My partners span 10 years to either side of me, but age isn’t terribly relevant — well, chronological age, anyway.  For basic compatibility, synchronicity of maturity and spirit matter far more than what the calendar says.

I don’t understand. Do locker rooms have some Magic Cloak of Disrespect that makes them places where it’s all right to say unacceptable things? Do the people in the locker rooms not interact with the rest of the world? There are no islands for intolerance or incivility – or, at least, there shouldn’t be. The fact that you’re near other people’s sweaty gym socks is no excuse for stuffing your humanity — or anyone else’s — in a locker.

And here’s a clue: if you’re having to defend it in public, or in a political debate, it’s obviously not “just locker room talk” anymore. And it never really was.

An upcoming visit with a long-distance partner left me wondering: How much do you care what your partners do when they are not with you? I mean, assuming there is basic agreement on safety practices, do you want to know details of their other encounters?

A couple of my partners are very interested in that — or, more to the point, don’t like surprises. They don’t need the blow-by-blow description, but do want to know when encounters occur, and with whom. Others want to know what other relationships are out there, but aren’t interested in details about when specific dates occur, much less details of what went on.

I am solidly in the latter camp. I hope very much that my partners have full and satisfying lives. But when they are not with me, I don’t need to know who they saw or where they went. Obviously, if they are excited about something and want to tell, I will be happy to join in their joy. But I have no need to know (nor a right to insist.)

Agreements differ; your mileage may vary. Does it, and why?

I honor and respect those who dedicate their lives to helping other people overcome their medical challenges. Healers — of whatever sort — rock.

So please don’t take it personally when I say that with several partners’ recent issues and a couple of my own, I could stand to not see a medical professional for a little while.

(Polyamory: All those things that happen in life, multiplied.)