About Partners

Why is the label "partner" as applied to relationships so loaded? When people hear the word partner, as in they're a partner of mine, it's often assumed this is a sexual and/or romantic relationship. But, isn't that privileging sexual and/or romantic relationships? Where does that leave asexual and/or aromantic people? They don't get to have partners?

Isn't it enough that an awesome person is someone who is special enough to be a life partner? To me a partner is somebody I am sharing this amazing, beautiful adventure called life with. Platonic Partner is an expression that's gaining traction. But, why? Why, if I say someone is a partner then other people assume I am saying we are having sex, unless I specifically say, "no we are not" by adding the word platonic.

Ultimately whether or not I'm having sex with this person who is a fellow traveler on this journey we call life is nobody's business but this person and I (and possibly our our other partners.) Love and/or sex does not owe anyone else an explanation.

Sigh, but, I just say friends. It's just easier. Sometimes though, that doesn't feel like it's enough. I guess it's enough, though. It's enough if we know how special we are to each other.

That's all that matters I guess.

Platonic Partnership

"This isn’t just a friendship, this is a partnership."

-  Sarah Burke

I'm Poly

"I'm poly, but not because I'm looking for multiplicity, or indeed, even anyone, but because I do not limit myself.

I'm just feeling the bubbling joyous aliveness of feeling supported... I see you, I admire you, I love you, I respect the work it takes to be you, I support you, I thank you."

- Thomas Seaman‎

An orientation…

When someone tells you something is an orientation they’re telling you something fundamental. They’re telling you something is:

1. Innate — It’s a feature. What they are telling you is this thing is as much a part of them as their eye color.

1. Lifelong — Orientations are unplanned. They just are, for an individual, like gravity. Orientations can change, people change, but most often do not change orientations.  People  evolve and there is fluidity, but don’t expect evolution or fluidity. The perception of change is most often people going through a process (or processes) of self discovery.

1. Unchangeable — Lot’s of people have tried to change orientations. Through will people can change behavior, but not their nature. People can do what they will but cannot will what they will. When fluidity occasionally happens, it is not an act of will.

Orientations are not (just) about what people do, it's about who they are. When people tell you who they are, listen.

Imagine they’re like Popeye saying, “I am what I am, and that's all that I am.”

About Film

A film image is a thing, a print is a thing, a digital image is data about a thing.

Film has a very different way of reacting to light. Like all analog mediums, film has a very different aesthetic than digital imagery. You can compare it to being like oil painting, or water colors, compared to digital art.

Your basic image in digital photography is dependent on the camera sensor and subsequent digital post processing in tools like Photoshop. Analog film is different, each individual film has its own palette and each developer interprets that palette differently.

Because they are things, negatives and slides (especially black and white) can be forgotten and sit in a box for 50 to 100 years untended and be rediscovered by subsequent generations.

Digital images need to be tended on an ongoing basis to not be lost to format and medium changes. A floppy disk of pictures from the 1970s is dubious. The social media platforms can go the way of MySpace. A box of negatives I found that my dad shot 60+ years ago, are still quite useable. A floppy disk from half that time ago would be quite dubious.

That said, it's all good. Take your pictures, do your art your way...

About being too...

I am not too anything. I am what I am that's alls that I am.

About Marriage

Marriage is whatever the people in the marriage say it is. There is no right or wrong way to do marriage. This is reflected by the fact that people write their own vows commonly these days. The marriage "contract" is between the parties in the contract. Done with consent, changing the nature of the marriage is renegotiating the contract not breaking any vows. You cannot break an agreement you agreed to change. How one marriage is structured; closed, open or sexless, has no bearing on other marriages and does not invalidate or otherwise reflect poorly on the people involved as long as it is done consensually. Other parties are entitled to have opinions on marriages that are not their own, but they are not relevant really and the people in a marriage need feel no shame regarding their relationship structure. Marriage is a contract that may be terminated by either party unilaterally, at any time, without fault. That is the nature of marriage and therefore not a source of relevant shaming.