http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgOn7wuC3tk
the 1st of july, give or take 2 days, was my one year anniversary for not have sexual relations. and i can count on 1 hand the amount of times i've been sexually active over the last 2 years. why is this important to say in a discussion centered around a therapeutic wilderness program? sexual intentionality. especially as it relates to outstanding questions with M and i.
i am a sexual being. i daresay almost every life form is. for quite some time, i released that sexuality nearly anywhere and everywhere. then i took greater control of myself and my desires and looked to break down habits. i started with the easier ones, then worked up to the more difficult ones: sex, cigarettes, and nail biting. i'm still a bit of a nail nibbler, i haven't smoked a cig in 6-7 months, and we know about the sex. but what about the sexuality? feel free to ask my boy mik about the following. he can confirm most of it...
since i returned to summit in oct '10, i have been very intentional about where i toss out my sexual energy. and unanimously, i put it out to folks that were not available in some way. i've theorized that my inner being wanted more solo time, thus the lack of returned energy in physical form. that said, there were some returned energies. i know because if i was interested in you for more than a hot second, i told you. that's how i work these days - i put my truth on the table. (one questionable truth is i can do anything. questionable. unlike the addiction theory of disease, which speaks to powerlesness. we'll get to that. for now, here's a few more things i/we can do - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afX6VYn48KE)
first was my friend b. i felt what mighta coulda been love. might still be, in fact. and when it made sense to let her in on my feelings and thoughts, i did just that. that made for an interesting conversation and a further layer to our relationship.
then there was my funky punky coffee house adoration. i found it pleasing on a few levels to write in an establishment that held what felt like a like soul, in terms of artistic and creative expression. plus, i thought (and think) she was sexy. when the time made sense, i told her. that, too, made for interesting conversation and a further layer or two to our relationship.
then there was a recent SA hire. much about her struck me as amazing right off. the more i got to know her, the more i found amazing. whatever "love at first sight" is, i seemed to have it. and it didn't take too long for me to pass on this sentiment. that didn't so much lead to an interesting conversation as it did quality interpersonal enjoyment. time will tell whether that leads to a further layer or two in our new friendship/relationship.
okay, so i'm a talker. a sharer. that's not proof of much more than i share. well, there is this little wrinkle - my type, as demonstrated by body shape. granted, i have been known to step outside of my type, but a quick run down of the recent cities i visited in the east coast as i left my job, was telling.
Mass - first lady friend i visited. the first "love" noted above. taller. skinny, fit.
NY - ex lives here. didn't see her. still - tall, very skinny.
Baltimore - friend/ex lover. tall, very skinny, fit.
the 2 remaining gals noted above - tallish to tall. skinny. and at least 1 is fit. very much so, it seems.
intriguing tidbit. all 3 of the ladies i noted above, that i became twitterpated with for various amounts of time, were airy aquarians. there's something there. i'm not sure what, but something. one thing i know for sure - M is not an aquarius and does not fill out that body type.
ok. so, enough defending what M and i weren't. what were we? i think it gets back to the nickname i received on my first expedition back to SA - uncle rich. except this time the "crazy" wasn't attached to uncle. this time the uncle moniker was in line with the way i feel about my nephews and nieces - that i love them and would go a long way to demonstrate that love.
Was there a sexual aspect? my appraisal puts the % of sexual vibing there at equal to or less that 2%. in other words, a standard non-sexual relationship. Far below any energy vibing i felt in regards to most of the female employees at SA. even below the energy vibes felt amongst some of those oh so beautiful males - matt and evan, please keep wearing dresses. it does something for me ;)
of course, SA attempts to be asexual. sanitized. blue juice away sexuality and it won't be there. so maybe saying 2% or less will be confirmation of "something" to someone. well, a rock falling from the sky has been confirmation to people for millennia that the sky is falling. 2% or less, to me, does not even confirm you're attractive. 2% merely confirms that you're human. for the record, i think M's vibing towards me would have been closer to 1% or less.
so why would cool, somewhat like peoples, a male and a female, whom vibe at such a low %, have such a tight bond? because we decided that was where we needed to go.
since i returned to SA, as i've stated, i've formed some decent bonds with former students. still, none of them needed to go that extra significant step or 2 further. the only other person i've regularly gone there with was mik.
mik and i would often go "there," sharing basically anything and everything, learning from and informing each other throughout. engaging in what he dubs "emotional dialogue." our struggles and joys were laid bare for each other, and in that type of openness, there is a vulnerability, and a bond forms. a closeness. a trust in each other. that was the type of relationship M needed.
So, when she shared and hurt over her personal and familial struggles, i listened. sometimes, i shared some of my own. and considering i have the experience of more than double her years on this planet, i think she dug my perspective. when she had her therapeutic goals, or feedback circles, i told her my mind. i don't pull my punches. she was smart enough to understand that there are not easy fitting answers to many of the questions she had; i did not give her the "easy" answers. in fact, i was much more likely to point out there might be mental and emotional pains for quite some time to come. i think that, because we understood we could say anything to each other, and be very reasonably assured of getting some truth and honesty in response, that there was a security there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUI-aCqFslI - i gave about all i could within the context of SA, and it didn't seem enough to either M or I. relationship destroying seemed a poor way to close out what was the building of a very solid friendship. so i decided to go against the man. well, i am not on the payroll any longer, so maybe i'll be able to give more, now.
i've found this world to be quite insecure, at times. a few things: friends/family members/leaves of grass, dream fulfillment, and a few other things, have eased that insecurity, allowing me to chomp on it and decide it was okay to keep on keeping on. it took me a long time before i legitimately included myself as a real ally for myself. when i did, i recognized how important personal responsibility is.
i think that being responsible for oneself: one's actions and one's thoughts and feelings, is one of the main concepts i pass on, whether at SA or elsewhere. and i know it can be hard to want to go there. to not rely on all the things we've formed various dependencies and crutches with. it seemed to me M wanted to go there, and needed guidance. so i helped guide that process. and in so doing, i think i became one of those safeguards for her. a safeguard that some policy decided was bad or inappropriate or wrong or illegal or something like that.
i am currently not a safeguard in M's life. because i broke SA law. but why is that SA law? what are the goals and aims of a program like SA? these and a few other dangly matters, like zero tolerance and abstinence, will be dealt with in an upcoming conclusion to this serial topic.
If... the machine of government... is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. ~Henry David Thoreau,On the Duty of Civil Disobedience
the 1st of july, give or take 2 days, was my one year anniversary for not have sexual relations. and i can count on 1 hand the amount of times i've been sexually active over the last 2 years. why is this important to say in a discussion centered around a therapeutic wilderness program? sexual intentionality. especially as it relates to outstanding questions with M and i.
i am a sexual being. i daresay almost every life form is. for quite some time, i released that sexuality nearly anywhere and everywhere. then i took greater control of myself and my desires and looked to break down habits. i started with the easier ones, then worked up to the more difficult ones: sex, cigarettes, and nail biting. i'm still a bit of a nail nibbler, i haven't smoked a cig in 6-7 months, and we know about the sex. but what about the sexuality? feel free to ask my boy mik about the following. he can confirm most of it...
since i returned to summit in oct '10, i have been very intentional about where i toss out my sexual energy. and unanimously, i put it out to folks that were not available in some way. i've theorized that my inner being wanted more solo time, thus the lack of returned energy in physical form. that said, there were some returned energies. i know because if i was interested in you for more than a hot second, i told you. that's how i work these days - i put my truth on the table. (one questionable truth is i can do anything. questionable. unlike the addiction theory of disease, which speaks to powerlesness. we'll get to that. for now, here's a few more things i/we can do - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afX6VYn48KE)
first was my friend b. i felt what mighta coulda been love. might still be, in fact. and when it made sense to let her in on my feelings and thoughts, i did just that. that made for an interesting conversation and a further layer to our relationship.
then there was my funky punky coffee house adoration. i found it pleasing on a few levels to write in an establishment that held what felt like a like soul, in terms of artistic and creative expression. plus, i thought (and think) she was sexy. when the time made sense, i told her. that, too, made for interesting conversation and a further layer or two to our relationship.
then there was a recent SA hire. much about her struck me as amazing right off. the more i got to know her, the more i found amazing. whatever "love at first sight" is, i seemed to have it. and it didn't take too long for me to pass on this sentiment. that didn't so much lead to an interesting conversation as it did quality interpersonal enjoyment. time will tell whether that leads to a further layer or two in our new friendship/relationship.
okay, so i'm a talker. a sharer. that's not proof of much more than i share. well, there is this little wrinkle - my type, as demonstrated by body shape. granted, i have been known to step outside of my type, but a quick run down of the recent cities i visited in the east coast as i left my job, was telling.
Mass - first lady friend i visited. the first "love" noted above. taller. skinny, fit.
NY - ex lives here. didn't see her. still - tall, very skinny.
Baltimore - friend/ex lover. tall, very skinny, fit.
the 2 remaining gals noted above - tallish to tall. skinny. and at least 1 is fit. very much so, it seems.
intriguing tidbit. all 3 of the ladies i noted above, that i became twitterpated with for various amounts of time, were airy aquarians. there's something there. i'm not sure what, but something. one thing i know for sure - M is not an aquarius and does not fill out that body type.
ok. so, enough defending what M and i weren't. what were we? i think it gets back to the nickname i received on my first expedition back to SA - uncle rich. except this time the "crazy" wasn't attached to uncle. this time the uncle moniker was in line with the way i feel about my nephews and nieces - that i love them and would go a long way to demonstrate that love.
Was there a sexual aspect? my appraisal puts the % of sexual vibing there at equal to or less that 2%. in other words, a standard non-sexual relationship. Far below any energy vibing i felt in regards to most of the female employees at SA. even below the energy vibes felt amongst some of those oh so beautiful males - matt and evan, please keep wearing dresses. it does something for me ;)
of course, SA attempts to be asexual. sanitized. blue juice away sexuality and it won't be there. so maybe saying 2% or less will be confirmation of "something" to someone. well, a rock falling from the sky has been confirmation to people for millennia that the sky is falling. 2% or less, to me, does not even confirm you're attractive. 2% merely confirms that you're human. for the record, i think M's vibing towards me would have been closer to 1% or less.
so why would cool, somewhat like peoples, a male and a female, whom vibe at such a low %, have such a tight bond? because we decided that was where we needed to go.
from thefreedictionary.com
allied [əˈlaɪd ˈælaɪd]
adj
1. joined, as by treaty, agreement, or marriage; united
2. of the same type or class; related
since i returned to SA, as i've stated, i've formed some decent bonds with former students. still, none of them needed to go that extra significant step or 2 further. the only other person i've regularly gone there with was mik.
mik and i would often go "there," sharing basically anything and everything, learning from and informing each other throughout. engaging in what he dubs "emotional dialogue." our struggles and joys were laid bare for each other, and in that type of openness, there is a vulnerability, and a bond forms. a closeness. a trust in each other. that was the type of relationship M needed.
So, when she shared and hurt over her personal and familial struggles, i listened. sometimes, i shared some of my own. and considering i have the experience of more than double her years on this planet, i think she dug my perspective. when she had her therapeutic goals, or feedback circles, i told her my mind. i don't pull my punches. she was smart enough to understand that there are not easy fitting answers to many of the questions she had; i did not give her the "easy" answers. in fact, i was much more likely to point out there might be mental and emotional pains for quite some time to come. i think that, because we understood we could say anything to each other, and be very reasonably assured of getting some truth and honesty in response, that there was a security there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUI-aCqFslI - i gave about all i could within the context of SA, and it didn't seem enough to either M or I. relationship destroying seemed a poor way to close out what was the building of a very solid friendship. so i decided to go against the man. well, i am not on the payroll any longer, so maybe i'll be able to give more, now.
i've found this world to be quite insecure, at times. a few things: friends/family members/leaves of grass, dream fulfillment, and a few other things, have eased that insecurity, allowing me to chomp on it and decide it was okay to keep on keeping on. it took me a long time before i legitimately included myself as a real ally for myself. when i did, i recognized how important personal responsibility is.
i think that being responsible for oneself: one's actions and one's thoughts and feelings, is one of the main concepts i pass on, whether at SA or elsewhere. and i know it can be hard to want to go there. to not rely on all the things we've formed various dependencies and crutches with. it seemed to me M wanted to go there, and needed guidance. so i helped guide that process. and in so doing, i think i became one of those safeguards for her. a safeguard that some policy decided was bad or inappropriate or wrong or illegal or something like that.
i am currently not a safeguard in M's life. because i broke SA law. but why is that SA law? what are the goals and aims of a program like SA? these and a few other dangly matters, like zero tolerance and abstinence, will be dealt with in an upcoming conclusion to this serial topic.
If... the machine of government... is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. ~Henry David Thoreau,On the Duty of Civil Disobedience
No comments:
Post a Comment