Search Results

Just phasin' through. 'Yana is my first true love (Kitty speaking).

If your Significant Other uses 'polyamory' as an excuse for cheating then it's time to bail. One can be both faithful and polyamorous, and consensual polyamory does not necessarily coincide with promiscuity. I hate that cheating has become synonymous with polyamorous relations; I don't find it's a valid excuse whatsoever in any case. It is unfortunate that most polyamorous and even bisexual characters within media should have to perpetuate this trope ...

This used to be my view as well, but I've found I've become more open with the idea particularly if all persons involved are on equal terms as friends beforehand. I think jealousy and possession come into play under the following conditions: when a third party is introduced into a preexisting arrangement, thereby disrupting an established dynamic. Then again, I'm also significantly more keen on the idea when it's a "friends with benefits" sort of deal ... But I dislike terming it as such because the implication inherent therein is that friendship is somehow less valid than traditionally 'romantic' relationships, the latter of which are often idealised anyways.

I don't think I might easily enter a polyamorous relationship if I was already involved in a monogamous relationship, specifically because romantic monogamous relationships entail a degree of 'measuring up' and sizing up competition, thence the aforementioned factors of "jealousy" and "possession." This begs the question of why anyone would willingly enter such an arrangement at all when the end result is often unhappiness, brides and grooms left at the altar. I understand it's thrilling to be found in one person, to be sought out like honey -- and the act of dating, all the lovely butterfly feelings procured therefrom. I find however that these relationships rarely have much to offer in the way of long-term stability, despite the universal importance of 'marriage' as a concept and practice within societies.

Take everything I say with a pinch of salt, I am mostly speaking on my own behalf here. As someone with a history of codependence, I should question whether monogamy is healthy for me personally ... indeed I still enjoy reading and hearing about the ideal partnership. I have befriended a bunch of polyamorous bisexuals though, and when they started talking about "our life together," I don't know how they meant it but it made me wonder.

1. Les Misérables - Finishing this brick... I mean, book, was like losing a friend. I remember it as though all the tales of the characters therein were merged into one palpable face, whom I'd like to embrace. Fond, fond, fond. It's easy to lose oneself to Hugo's descriptions for the most part, 200 pages on the Parisian sewer system notwithstanding. I've always enjoyed classic authors' plain third-person narratives however, and I read primary historical texts on my own time so my opinions should be taken with a pinch of salt.
2. Orlando - Disclaimer: I enjoyed the movie feat. Tilda Swinton over the source material. The book serves as an experiment in Magic Realism (see: Orlando's abrupt fairy godmother gender change). It was... interesting, I know this book is acclaimed as being a "love letter" to Virginia Woolf's girlfriend and noteworthy in trans-related discourse besides, but I felt my appreciation for Woolf's "progressive" approach to the issue diminish in light of her obvious classism/racism. An enjoyable read all in all, if problematic.
3. Maurice - Remember when E.M. Forster wrote a gay love story? I'd suppose not, it was published posthumously and most high school students remember him for A Passage to India. Maurice is very intimate without being explicit. One of his characters, Clive, reminds me of Cecil from his other novel (A Room with a View): the high-class non-intimate aesthetic-appreciative English man plays the foil (both Maurice and Lucy end up leaving their SOs behind). Forster has a way of describing his character's flaws without expressly condoning them, which is refreshing. Forster is that author I like to before bedtime; I feel grounded to reality when I read him.

Stop nerds at all costs.

Spoiler: you

Yes. We dressed up, but failed to make it into the actual park itself unfortunately.

Spoiler: taken during the summer

Happy birthday. <3

Bonnes vacances, monsieur.

Don't do that. If the creature is a Dryad or tree nymph for instance, they'll be shy, an' you don't want to frighten 'em away. Set the table for two, or three, five just to be on the safe side. If it's Christmas Eve where you are, bake some cookies. Invite them over for dinner.

Riku

Something else. I don't want to necessarily dissuade you from antidepressants entirely, they *can* he helpful (and indeed the only viable option)...

First of all, antidepressants are not a cure in and of themselves. If they work, they treat the physiological symptoms through which the condition manifests; if the condition can be ascribed to chemical imbalances within the brain, e.g., lack of serotonin, then SSRis or SNRIs may be effective in "correcting" this imbalance. But I find this is a simplistic view and thus misleading, particularly if the depression is long-term rather than short-term, or if the cause is rooted in environmental factors rather than definite chemical shortages. Furthermore, the usage thereof can entail undesirable side effects such as weight loss, decreased sex drive, insomnia, all of which are, coincidentally, symptoms of depression (my mother stopped taking antidepressants because they made her feel "like a zombie"). Additionally, prescription drugs may be effective for a period of time but then cease working...

I also want to note that depressive behaviour often coincides with other mental afflictions such as personality disorders, which aren't half as easy to "cure," the question then: how does one acquire a cure for their personality? Persons afflicted with long-term depression often feel as though they are the Depression, preexisting personality traits are wiped from the canvas. I don't have the time to write as detailed a response as I'd like, but I suppose I'll provide some personal experience/opinion before I leave this. I don't think I would benefit from prescription drugs. I don't know whether I have depression per se, nor what my formal diagnosis would be, but I am very "neurotic." By this I mean I often act like my eighty year old grandmother, insofar as she responds hypersensitively to weak stimuli (hyperventilating, sobbing, et cetera). Panic attacks that mirror stroke-like symptoms, etc., etc. Perhaps the tremors, lachrymation, etc., is curable, but the source of the anxiety remains whether I am sedated or not (and I suspect the condition is largely hereditary in nature). This is where the role of therapy ultimately comes in.

Whether or not individuals seek treatment is highly dependent on the society in which they live, the nonexistence of "depression" in Japan for example is not necessarily indicant of the happiness of the general individual but psychiatric standards by which the society assesses its clients. In my country psych wards are reserved for clinically "insane" individuals, and people do not seek help unless they are physically incapable of meeting society's demands. Hilariously, we're also the happiest. Apparently. I'm sure all those Roma children are very happy to be begging on the streets (I'm also sure they were omitted from the survey).