Back to Sex and Boys (and Rock ‘n’ Roll?)

The time has officially come for me to stop crying over spoilt ballot papers and move back into more pleasing territory. I’ve been hovering around the edge of the Cliff of Mental Unwellness since the election results, and I can’t cope with it anymore. If I don’t find *something* else to talk about, I’ll wind up back on various medications, and I can really do without that… so I need something that’s guaranteed to make me smile.

So, men it is.

Nah, not really. But a little bit. Lemme tell you the tale.

So, I’ve got 2 fellas, we all know that. (Do we? All of us? Moving on.) The newest development, in the grand scheme of things, is that 1 of them is thinking about setting up a singing group with some of our other friends… and while I don’t sing–ever–in public or for public consumption, I *do* occasionally knock a line or two together for a friend (ta for that line, Bernie Taupin) and sometimes, I do it in the form of a parody. And while I’m no Weird Al, every so often, I put together something that’s actually a little bit good.

The thought of writing parodies for an actual singing group, of being involved creatively in some sort of collaborative writing, again… it makes the juices flow.

The creative ones, natch. Not talking about any other juices. Nope, not me, no way.

But while we’re on the subject, the vocal group (assuming it actually forms) will be a mostly-male group. (Do I count as a member, if all I do is shift rewritten lyrics and encouragement their way? Who knows.)

And who cares? Even if I were completely uninvolved, I think it would not tax me in any way, to go and watch a group of my mates (mostly male, did I mention…) doing the thing I find most attractive in the world, aka singing. Especially since they really make such an attractive group of lads anyway–and lads is about right. Not a one of them is older than me, and at least one is *significantly* younger. Like, really much younger. Like, in a would-it-be-funny-to-parody-Maggie-May, type of younger.

That sounds like a good idea, actually. Best get crackin’, then.

This is going to be so much fun.


Why I will never apologize for being left wing, and why Labour shouldn’t either.

Sorry for the endless politics (I’ll go back to sex, drugs, and bad poetry soon enough) but we are all still reeling from the election results, this side of the Pond… and this sums up the changes we need much better than I could:

Wilsher 's Blog

The election happened last week, the Conservatives were elected, and people are angry. I know this not just because people are taking to the streets, but because I wrote a letter. It’s nearly on 300,000 views. The most views I’d had on anything before that was two and I’m pretty sure they were both from my mum. But this time people read it, and people agreed with it. And their voices need to be heard. A shift to the right disregards all those who voted for Labour because they were the closest they could get to left wing. And a shift to the right takes away any possibility of real change.  The middle ground is not some promised land, it’s the barren wasteland that politics has become, full of spin doctors, marketing and personality politics.

If Labour ever want to win they have to stop being ‘not the conservatives’ and…

View original post 646 more words


An open letter to everyone who voted Conservative yesterday and why you should hesitate before you pat yourself on the back.

This, all of it:

Wilsher 's Blog

To everyone who voted conservative yesterday,

I hope you’re happy. Actually that’s a lie, I really don’t. But before you sit smugly down and give yourself a big pat on the back I’d like to ask you a few questions.

Do you think you haven’t benefitted from the system you are currently trying to break down? As a child, did you ever go to hospital? Have you had an education? Did you ever use a library? Have you ever been on a bus? If so, you have benefited from a system which subsidises facilities with taxes. And now you have, you are willing to take it away from everyone after you. Correct me if I’m wrong but that doesn’t seem very fair. You cannot have socialism and a support system when you need it but then be unwilling to support it for other people.

Now if you are someone who…

View original post 809 more words


Polyamory, Revisited

So, I mentioned a while back that I’m exploring polyamory. I think I was pretty clear that, at the moment, I’m with 2 men and no more; and thus far, that seems to suit me (or it suits me better than my relationship with my partner was suiting me; for a variety of reasons, we’d grown… eh… a bit less close, but still deeply in love and committed to each other’s well-being). Our current situation does feel like something of a compromise–but then, when is love *not* a situation requiring compromise? (No, the compromise is not all on my lovers’ side, although I imagine that’s the first conclusion someone who doesn’t know the situation well might jump to.) One of the compromises I’m making involves exploring the ins-and-outs of polyamorous ideas and models, whether or not they coincide with my own ideals, and trying to ensure that my approach to my romantic relationships is as balanced as it can be. (I’m no great arbiter of balance and circumspection, you understand, but I do my poor best.)

Currently, I’m reading a book entitled, “The Art and Etiquette of Polyamory,” by Francoise Simpere, who’s something of a self-proclaimed expert on the topic. Don’t get me wrong, she has a lot of good points to make (many of them about the traditional roles of men and women, and the benefits of polyamory in redefining those roles) but I can’t help but think her ideals are so farfetched as to be virtually unobtainable. Without giving specific examples, there is a distinctly Utopian slant to the author’s writing, that makes it sound as if everyone in the world were capable of fostering relationships completely devoid of jealousy, possessiveness, or sordid curiosity. In one chapter of the book, she does address the “infidelity gene” that some people have (though she objects to its name) and muses that perhaps not *everyone* can reach these glorious heights of self-expression, romantic freedom, and boundless love… but overall, she certainly seems to think that it’s an ideal that’s perfect for many people.

Personally, I find I regularly vacillate between the 2 dominant views discussed in her book, namely, monogamy and polyamory. I can see numerous pros and cons to each; and, like the contrarian I am, I tend to admire the lifestyle I’m *not* engaging in at the time. (Yes, that’s a not-so-subtle hint that monogamy is starting to look more attractive to me, again–but in the clear understanding that, every time I’ve thought that and tried to practice it, I’ve come to the conclusion that 1 man is never going to be enough for me.)

If there is an infidelity gene (by which I mean, if that’s an accurate name for it) I have little doubt I’ve inherited it. As I love to say, my dad not only chases skirt, he chases it in much the same way as I chase trouser (similar MO, similar goals from what I can tell, similar rewards reaped in succeeding). And it’s not that I’m not more than the sum of my genetics–I am, as are we all–but there is a certain point which, when reached, does just leave you wondering why you would even bother to fight your nature. I’ve given up on the idea of eternal punishment (mostly) and I go out of my way to be kind and compassionate to my men (more so than many wives/girlfriends I know, at least as far as I can tell)… that ought to count for something. Right?

One final thought: I’m not going to load the dice by stating what it is… but I hope against hope and wish against wish that someone would ask the pertinent question, about the above.