#because it helps them to fulfil their ultimate goals of reinforcing the family unit + status quo capitalism

[identitty-dickruption]

yknow gang I don’t think it’s helpful to continuously act like conservatism is inherently logically inconsistent or that it’s an ideology uniquely based on emotion rather than logic. firstly. the emotion/logic dichotomy is a myth and we all make decisions based on both of those things. but more importantly, there are logical consistencies in conservative thought and it is infinitely more helpful to know what they are and how to deconstruct them than to pretend that they don’t exist

[not even mentioning the fact that ‘conservatism’ isn’t one singular ideology any more than ‘leftism’ is. it is a cluster of ideologies that we often group together but that have important differences. if you think ‘conservatives’ are contradicting themselves you may just be looking at two different people with two different foundational beliefs]

[warsofasoiaf]

Writing Characters With Believable Military PTSD

I typically write these writing and worldbuilding essays from a dispassionate perspective, offering advice and context to prospective writers from as neutral a point of view as I can manage, with the goal being to present specific pieces of information and broader concepts that can hopefully improve writing and build creators’ confidence to bring their projects to fruition, whether that be writing, tabletop gaming, video game programming, or anything that suits their fancy. While writing this essay though, I struggled to maintain that perspective. Certainly, the importance of the topic to me was a factor, but ultimately, I saw impersonality just as a suboptimal presentation method for something so intensely personal. I do maintain some impartiality particularly in places where historical or academic context is called for, but in other respects I’ve opted for a different approach. Ultimately, this essay is a labor of love for me, love for those who suffer from military PTSD, love for those who love those who suffer from it, and love for writers who want to, in the way that they so choose, help those two other groups out. Thus, this is a different type of essay in certain segments than my usual fare; I hope the essay isn’t an unreadable chimera because of it.

This essay focuses on military-related PTSD. While there are some concepts that translate well into PTSD in the civilian sphere, there are unique elements that do not necessarily fit the mold in both directions, so for someone hoping to write a different form of PTSD, I would recommend finding other resources that could better suit your purposes. I also recommend using more than one source just in general, trauma is personal and so multiple sources can help provide a wide range of experiences to draw upon, which should hopefully improve any creative work.

And as a final introductory note, traumatic experiences are deeply personal. If you are using someone you know as a model for your writing, you owe it to that person to communicate exactly what you are doing and to ask their permission every step of the way. I consider it a request out of politeness to implore any author who uses someone else’s experiences to inform their writing in any capacity, but when it comes to the truly negative experiences in someone’s life, this rises higher from request to demand. You will ask someone before taking a negative experience from their own life and placing it into your creative works, and you will not hide anything about it from them. Receiving it is a great sign of trust. The opposite is a travesty, robbing someone of a piece of themselves and placing it upon display as a grotesque exhibit. And if that sounds ghoulish and macabre, it’s because it is, without hyperbole. Don’t do it.

Why Write PTSD?

What is the purpose of including PTSD in a creative work? There have been plenty of art therapy actions taken by those who suffer PTSD to create something from their condition, which can be as profound for those who do not have it as it is therapeutic for those that do, but why would someone include it in their creative works, and why is some no-name guy on the internet writing an essay offering tips as to how to do it better?

Certainly, one key element is that it’s real, and it happens. If art is to reflect upon reality, PTSD suffered by soldiers is one element of that, so art can reflect it, but what specifically about PTSD, as opposed to any other facet of existence? Author preference certainly plays a factor, but why would someone try to include something that is difficult to understand and difficult to portray? While everyone comes to their own reason, I think that a significant number of people are curious about what exactly goes on in the minds of someone suffering through PTSD, and creative works allow them a way to explore it, much the way fiction can explore scenarios and emotions that are either unlikely or unsafe to explore in reality. If that’s the case, then the purpose of this essay is rather simple, to make the PTSD examination more grounded in reality and thus a better reflection of it. But experiences are unique even if discernable patterns emerge, so in that sense, no essay created by an amateur writer with no psychological experience could be an authoritative take on reality, the nature of which would is far beyond the scope of this essay.

For my own part, I think that well-done creative works involving PTSD is meant to break down the isolation that it can cause in its wake. Veterans suffering may feel that they are alone, that their loved ones cannot understand them and the burden of trying to create that would simply push them away; better instead to have the imperfect bonds that they currently have than risk losing them entirely. For those who are on the outside looking in, isolation lurks there as well, a gulf that seems impossible to breach and possibly intrusive to even try. Creative works that depict PTSD can help create a sense that victims aren’t alone, that there are people that understand and can help without demeaning the sense of self-worth. Of course, another element would be to reduce the amount of poorly-done depictions of PTSD. Some creative works use PTSD as a backstory element, relegating a defining and important element of an individual’s life as an aside, or a minor problem that can be resolved with a good hug and a cry or a few nights with the right person. If a well-done creative work can help create a bridge and break down isolation, a poorly-done one can turn victims off, reinforcing the idea that no one understands and worse, no one cares. For others, it gives a completely altered sense of what PTSD is and what they could do to help, keeping them out, confusing them, or other counter-productive actions. In that sense, all the essay is to help build up those who are doing the heavy lifting. I’m not full of so much hubris as to think this is a profound piece of writing that will help others, but if creators are willing to try and do the hard work of building a bridge, I could at least try to help out and provide a wheelbarrow.

An Abbreviated Look At The Many Faces and Names of PTSD Throughout History

PTSD has been observed repeatedly throughout human history, even when it was poorly understood. This means that explorations of PTSD can be written in settings even if they did not have a distinctly modern understanding of neurology, trauma, or related matters. These historical contexts are also useful for worldbuilding a believable response in fictional settings and scenarios that don’t necessarily have a strict analogue in our own history. By providing this historical context, hopefully I can craft a broad-based sense of believable responses to characters with PTSD at a larger level.

In the time of Rome, it was understood by legionnaires that combat was a difficult endeavor, and so troops were typically on the front lines engaged in combat for short periods of time, to be rotated back for rest while others took their place. It was considered ideal, in these situations, to rotate troops that fought together back so that they could rest together. The immediate lesson is obvious, the Romans believed that it was vital for troops to take time to process what they had done and that was best served with quiet periods of rest not just to allow the adrenaline to dissipate (the "combat high"), but a chance for the mind to wrap itself around what the legionnaire had done. The Romans also recognized that camaraderie between fellow soldiers helped soldiers to cope, and this would be a running theme throughout history (and remains as such today). Soldiers were able to empathize with each other, and help each other through times of difficulty. This was not all sanguine, however, Roman legions depended on their strong formations, and a soldier that did not perform their duty could endanger the unit, and so shame in not fulfilling their duty was another means to keep soldiers in line. The idea of not letting down your fellow soldiers is a persistent refrain in coping with the traumas of war, and throughout history this idea has been used for both pleasant and unpleasant means of keeping soldiers in the fight.

In the Middle Ages, Geoffroi de Charny wrote extensively on the difficulties that knights could experience on the campaign trail in his Book of Chivalry. The book highlights the deprivation that knights suffered, from the bad food and poor sleep to the traumatic experience of combat to being away from family and friends to the loss of valued comrades to combat and infection; each of these is understood as a significant stressor that puts great strain on the mental health of soldiers up to today. De Charny recommended focusing on the knightly oaths of service, the needs of the mission of their liege, and the duty of the knight to serve as methods to help bolster the resolve of struggling knights. The book also mentions seeking counseling and guidance from priests or other confidants to help improve their mental health to see their mission through. This wasn’t universal, however. Some severely traumatized individuals were seen as simple cowards, and punished harshly for their perceived cowardice as antithetical to good virtue and to serve as an example.

World War I saw a sharp rise in the reported incidents of military-related PTSD and new understandings and misunderstandings. The rise in the number of soldiers caused a rise in cases of military PTSD, even though the term itself was not known at the time. Especially in the early phases of the war, many soldiers suffering from PTSD were thought to be malingering, pretending to have symptoms to avoid being sent to the front lines. The term “shell shock” was derived because it was believed that the concussive force of artillery bombardment caused brain damage as it rattled the skull or carbon monoxide fumes would damage the brain as they were inhaled, as a means to explain why soldiers could have physical responses such as slurred speech, lack of response to external stimuli, even nigh-on waking catatonia, despite not being hit by rifle rounds or shrapnel. This would later be replaced by the term “battle fatigue” when it became apparent that artillery bombardment was not a predicative indicator. Particularly as manpower shortages became more prevalent, PTSD-sufferers could be sent to firing squads as a means to cow other troops to not abandon their post. Other less fatal methods of shaming could occur, such as the designation “Lack of Moral Fibre,” an official brand of cowardice, as an attempt to shame the members into remembering their duty. As the war developed, and understanding grew, better methods of treatment were made, with rest and comfort provided to slight cases, strict troop rotations observed to rotate men to and from the front lines, and patients not being told that they were being evacuated for nervous breakdown to avoid cementing that idea in their mind. These lessons would continue into World War II, where the term “combat stress reaction” was adopted. While not always strenuously followed, regular rotations were adopted as standard policy. This was still not universal, plenty of units still relied upon bullying members into maintaining their post despite mental trauma.

The American military promotes a culture of competence and ability, particularly for the enlisted ranks, and that lends itself to the soldier viewing themselves in a starkly different fashion than a civilian. Often, a soldier sees the inability to cope with a traumatic experience as a personal failure stemming from the lack of mental fortitude. Owning up to such a lack of capability is tantamount to accepting that they are an inferior soldier, less capable than their fellows. This idea is commonly discussed, and should not be ignored, but it is far from the only reason. The military also possesses a strong culture of fraternity that obligates “Don’t be a fuckup,” is a powerful motivating force, and it leads plenty of members of the military to ignore traumatic experiences out of the perceived need not to put the burden on their squadmates. While most professional militaries stress that seeking mental health for trauma is not considered a sign of weakness, enlisted know that if they receive mental health counseling, it is entirely likely that someone will have to take their place in the meantime. That could potentially mean that another person, particularly in front-line units, are exposed to danger that they would otherwise not be exposed to, potentially exacerbating guilt if said person gets hurt or killed. This is even true in stateside units, plenty of soldiers don’t report for treatment because it would mean dumping work on their fellows, a negative aspect of unit fraternity. Plenty of veterans also simply never are screened for mental health treatment, and usually this lends to a mentality of “well, no one is asking, so I should be fine.” These taken together combine to a heartbreaking reality, oftentimes a modern veteran that seeks help for mental trauma has often coped silently for years, perhaps self-medicating with alcohol or off-label drug usage, and is typically very far along their own path comparatively. Others simply fall through the cracks, not being screened for mental disorders and so do not believe that anything is wrong; after all, if something was wrong, surely the doctors would notice it, right? The current schedule of deployments, which are duration-based and not mission-based, also make it hard for servicemembers to rationalize their experiences and equate them to the mission; there’s no sense of pairing suffering to objectives the way that de Charnay mentioned could help contextualize the deprivation and loss. These sorts of experiences make the soldier feel adrift, and their suffering pointless, which is discouraging on another level. It is one thing to suffer for a cause, it’s another not to know why, amplifying the feelings of powerlessness and furthering the isolation that they feel.

Pen to Page - The Characters and Their Responses

The presentation of PTSD within a character will depend largely on the point-of-view that the author creates. A character that suffers from PTSD depending on the presence of an internal or external point-of-view, will be vastly different experiences on page. Knowing this is essential, as this will determine how the story itself is presenting the disorder. Neither is necessarily more preferable than the other, and is largely a matter of the type of story being told and the personal preference of the author.

Internal perspectives will follow the character’s response from triggering event to immediate response. This allows the author to present a glimpse into what the character is experiencing. In these circumstances, remember that traumatic flashbacks are merely one of many experiences that an average sufferer of PTSD can endure. In a visual medium, flashbacks are time-effective methods to portray a character reliving portions of a traumatic experience, but other forms of media can have other tools. Traumatic flashbacks are not necessarily a direct reliving of an event from start to finish, individuals may instead feel sudden sharp pains of old injuries, be overwhelmed by still images of traumatic scenes or loud traumatic sounds. These can be linked to triggers that bring up the traumatic incident, such as a similar sight, sound, or smell. These moments of linkage are not necessarily experienced linearly or provide a clear sequence of events from start to finish (memory rarely is unless specifically prompted), and it may be to the author’s advantage to not portray them as such in order to communicate the difficulty in mental parsing that the character may be experiencing. Others might be more intrusive, such as violently deranged nightmares that prevent sleep. The author must try to strike a balance between portraying the experience realistically and portraying it logically that audience members can understand. The important thing about these memories is that they are intrusive, unwelcome, and quite stressful, so using techniques that jar the reader, such as the sudden intrusive image of a torn body, a burning vehicle, or another piece of the traumatic incident helps communicate the disorientation. Don't rely simply on shock therapy, it's not enough just to put viscera on the page. Once it is there, the next steps, how the character reacts, is crucial to a believable response.

When the character experiences something that triggers their PTSD, start to describe the stress response, begin rapidly shortening the sentences to simulate the synaptic activity, express the fight-flight-freeze response as the character reacts, using the tools of dramatic action to heighten tension and portraying the experience as something frightful and distinctly undesirable. The triggering incident brings back the fear, such as a pile of rubble on the side of the road being a potential IED location, or a loud firework recalling the initial moments of an enemy ambush. The trauma intrudes, and the character falls deep into the stress response, and now they react. How does this character react? By taking cover? By attacking the aggressor who so reminds them of the face of their enemy? Once the initial event starts, then the character continues to respond. Do they try to get to safety? Secure the area and eliminate the enemy? Eventually, the character likely recognizes their response is inappropriate. It wasn’t a gunshot, it was a car backfiring, the smell of copper isn’t the sight of a blown-apart comrade and the rank odor of blood, it’s just a jug of musty pennies. This fear will lead to control mechanisms where the victim realizes that their response is irrational. Frequently, the fear is still there, and it still struggles with control. This could heighten a feeling a powerlessness in the character as they try and fail to put the fear under control: "Yes, I know this isn’t real and there’s nothing to be afraid of, but I’m still shaking and I am still afraid!" It’s a horrifying logical track, a fear that the victim isn’t even in control of their thoughts - the one place that they should have control - and that they might always be this way. There’s no safety since even their thoughts aren’t safe. Despair might also follow, as the victim frantically asserts to regain control. Usually with time, the fear starts to lessen as the logical centers of the brain regain control, and the fear diminishes. Some times, the victim can't even really recall the exact crippling sense of fear when attempting to recall it, only that they were afraid and that it was deeply scary and awful, but the notion that it happened remains in their mind.

Control mechanisms are also important to developing a believable PTSD victim. Most sufferers dread the PTSD response and so actively avoid objects or situations that could potentially trigger. Someone who may have had to escape from a helicopter falling into the ocean may not like to be immersed in water. Someone who was hit by a hidden IED may swerve to avoid suspicious piles in the road. Someone buried under a collapsing ceiling may become claustrophobic. Thus, many characters with PTSD will be hypervigilant almost to the point of exhaustion, avoiding setting off the undesired response. This hypervigilance is mentally taxing; the character begins to become sluggish mentally as all their energy is squeezed out, leaving them struggling for even the simplest of rational thoughts. This mental fog can be translated onto the page in dramatic effect by adding paragraph length to even simple actions, bringing the reader along into the fog, laboriously seeing the character move to perform simple actions. Then, mix in a loss of a sense of purpose. They’re adrift, not exactly sure what they’re doing and barely aware of what’s happening, although they are thinking and functioning. In the character’s daily life, they are living their life using maximum effort to avoid triggering responses; this is another aspect of control that the character can use as an attempt to claw back some semblance of power in their own lives. Even control methods that aren’t necessarily healthy such as drinking themselves to pass out every night or abusing sleeping pills in an attempt to sleep due to their nightmares, are ways to attempt to regain a sense of normalcy and function. Don’t condescend to these characters and make them pathetic, that’s just another layer of cruelty, but showing the unhealthy coping mechanisms can demonstrate the difficulty that PTSD victims are feeling. Combined with an external perspective, the author can show the damage that these unhealthy actions are doing without casting the character as weak for not taking a different path.

External perspectives focus on the other characters and how they observe and react to the individual in question. Since the internal thought process of the character is not known, sudden reactions to an unknown trigger can be quite jarring for characters unaware, which can mirror real-life experiences that individuals can have with PTSD-sufferers. In these types of stories, the character’s reaction to the victim is paramount. PTSD in real life often evokes feelings of helplessness in loved ones when they simply cannot act to help, can evoke confusion, or anger and resentment. These reactions are powerful emotions with the ability to drive character work, and so external perspectives can be useful for telling a story about what it is like for loved ones who suffer in their own fashion. External perspectives can be used not just in describing triggering episodes, but in exploring how the character established coping mechanisms and how their loved ones react to them. Some mechanisms are distinctly unhealthy, such as alcohol or prescription drug abuse, complete withdrawal, or a refusal to drive vehicles, and these create stress and a feeling of helplessness in characters or can impel them to try and take action. Others can be healthy, and a moment of inspiration and joy for an external perspective could be sharing in that mechanism, demonstrating empathy and understanding which evokes strong pathos, and hopefully to friends of those who suffer from PTSD, a feeling that they too, are not alone.

As the character progresses, successes and failures can often be one of the most realistic and most important things to include within the work, since those consumers who have PTSD will see parts of themselves in the characters, which can build empathy and cut down on the feelings of isolation that many victims of PTSD feel. A character could, over the course of the story, begin weaning themselves off of their control mechanisms, have the feelings of panic subside as their logical sides more quickly assert control, replace unhealthy coping mechanisms with healthier ones, or other elements of character progression and growth. Contrarily, a character making progress could, after experiencing significant but unrelated stressors, backslide either into unhealthy coping mechanisms or be blindsided by another attack. This is a powerful fear for the victim, since it can cause them to think ‘all my progress, all my effort, and I am not free!’ This is often a great fear for PTSD users (people with depression often have the same feeling) that find methods of coping are no longer as effective, and the struggle is perceived as one that they’re ultimately doomed to failure. This feeling of inevitable failure can lead to self-harm and suicide as their avenue of success seems to burn to ash right as it was in their hands. More than one soldier suffering from PTSD has ended up concluding: “Fuck it, I can’t live like this,” as horrible as that is. Don’t be afraid to include setbacks and backsliding, those happen in reality, and can be one of the most isolating fears in their lives; if the goal of portraying PTSD accurately is to help remove that feeling of isolation, then content creators must not avoid these experiences. Success as well as failure are essential to PTSD in characters in stories, these elements moreso than any other, I believe, will transcend the medium and form a connection, fulfilling the objective we set out to include in the beginning paragraphs.

Coming Back to the Beginning

It might be counterintuitive at first glance to say “including military PTSD will probably mean it will be a long journey full of discouraging story beats that might make readers depressed,” because that’s definitely going to discourage some readers to do that. I don’t see it that way, though. The people that want to do it should go in knowing it’s going to be hard, and let that strengthen their resolve, and put the best creation they can forward. The opposite is also true. Not every prospective author has to want to include any number of difficult subjects in their works, and that’s perfectly fine. Content creators must be free to shape the craft that they so desire without the need to be obligated to tackle every difficult issue, and so no content creator should be thought of as lesser or inferior because they opt not to include it in their works. I think that’s honestly stronger than handling an important topic poorly, or even worse, frivolously. Neither should anyone think that a content creator not including PTSD in their works means that they don’t care about those who suffer from it or for those who care about them or who simply don’t care about the subject in general. That’s just a terrible way to treat someone, and in the end, this entire excursion was about the opposite

Ultimately, this essay is a chance not only to help improve creative works involving PTSD, but to reflect on the creative process. Those who still want to proceed, by all means, do so. Hopefully this essay will help you create something that can reach someone. If every piece of work that helps portray PTSD can reach someone somewhere and make things easier, even if ever so little, well then, that’s what it’s really all about.

Hoping everyone has a peaceful Memorial Day. Be good to each to other.

SLAL

[rotten-zucchinis]

On “Monogamy”

The other day, in the midst of some anti-monogamy critique (that was described to a baby anarchist as “pushing the envelope”), someone asked me what I meant by “monogamy”. I ended up spelling it out in a lot of detail.

TLDR:  

Monogamy is the framework that constructs people-as-property (with all its implications) as well as the structuring of society around "couples". 

The one-and-only one aspect of romantic/sexual relationships most commonly labelled "monogamy" is the most superficial manifestation of that "institution".

Polyamorous or otherwise “non-monogamous” practices that continue to treat people-as-property (just with slightly different access rules) and which centre "couples" are participating in / enacting Monogamy's institutions just like nominally "monogamous" relationships/practices do. 

Monogamy is inherently coercive but alternatives aren't necessarily less coercive.

What is monogamy?

Monogamy is set of institutions, practices and social structures centred around:

privileging sets of dyadic romantic/sexual relationships

that are placed atop a hierarchy of value (and presumed intimacy) as the “One Important Relationship” people normatively should have

and invoking various restrictions, obligations and entitlements governing partners' behaviour toward each other and others in the goal of protecting that “One Important Relationship” from various “threats” (typically posed by “less important” relationships)

Monogamy frames relationship-mates and their social/emotional resources as the “property” of the other partner, wherein they might “owe” each other or “be entitled to” from each other certain levels of emotional support / attention / resources, etc. This includes the construction of people's bodies as the legitimate “property” of their relationship counterpart, wherein they might “owe” (or be “entitled to”) sexual access to their counterpart's body. (Those kinds of obligations and entitlements make genuine consent impossible, even before conversations about how desires are constructed and by what social pressures, expectations and regulatory “punishments” etc.)

Restricting the behaviour of relationship-mates toward other people ensures that their “resources” will not be “ciphoned away” from their “legitimate owner” (i.e., their partner). Under this system, relationship-mates are limited to having all romantic, sexual and intimacy needs strictly from each other (setting people up to be overly-dependent on each other for the fulfilment of basic social needs), and conversely, they are held responsible for meeting these needs for their relationship-mates.  

(This is extremely isolating and creates a situation of artificial scarcity of intimacy, while also preventing people from seeking intimacy through other avenues, including through friendships, while directly devaluing non-romantic forms of intimacy. There are some exceptions made for non-romantic intimacy which functions to support exclusive couples and help people survive the normative emotional poverty of coupledom, especially hetero-coupledom— for example, the trope of sisters or “girl friends” providing each other the emotional support that their husbands don't provide and which renders their marriages tolerable or even “happy”.)

“Cheating” is therefore a matter of either:

a relationship-mate sharing access to their own body and emotional resources with someone other than their stated partner (which “cheats” the partner in question out of being able to fully access those “resources” that “belong” to them)

a relationship-mate sharing in someone else's emotional resources or access to that person's body (in ways that might meet certain desires or needs and therefore undermine the isolation-caused dependence involved in the first partnership, thereby potentially “disincentivising” that one relationship-mate to remain as committed to the first partner(ship) in an imbalanced way compared with their partner whose dependence upon that relationship remains unchanged)

This translates in practice to a 1-on-1 relationship structure that is not only exclusive of other people but more importantly where rules and restrictions are in place to keep things in that 1-on-1 setup. And in this respect, society—in all aspects, from state institutions and sanctions to community norms— is structured around monogamous partnerships as the only form of “legitimate” intimate/important relationships for adults, around which all “legitimate” adults are supposed to structure their lives (i.e., excluding people who are left out of adult personhood, for example, for reasons of disability and ableism).

Monogamy ascribes value to persons based on their “desirability” and/or ability to “attract and/or keep” a monogamous partner. Monogamy is deeply connected with constructions of the nuclear family and, in that, intimately tied in with capitalism through providing the basis for nuclear family consumer units. And monogamy is systemically used as a tool to uphold and enforce amatonormativity and compulsory sexuality, and the ways these systems are used to enact and justify racist and colonial agendas as well as rape culture. Monogamy is often also used as a tool to uphold the institution of heterosexuality as well as homonormativity.

Additionally, monogamy as a structure is nominally limited to focusing on romantic and/or sexual relationships since these are the only ones viewed as “significant” enough to pose substantive “threats”. By extension, “overly close” friendship (especially between people of different genders in a hetero context) are constructed as “unhealthy” or “destructive” because of their capacity to edge into romantic or sexual territory and ultimately pose a threat.

What is coercive and destructive about monogamy isn't that it involves two people having one and only one significant romantic/sexual relationship in their life: it's how individuals are framed as each others' property, and how individuals enact structures and practices of restrictions, obligations and entitlements in order to preserve/protect/immortalise that relationship set-up.

Various approaches to “non-monogamy” (especially in forms of polyamory) reject the superficial manifestation of monogamy, namely its 1-on-1 exclusivity, while typically simultaneously avoiding any rejection of the things that make “Monogamy” coercive. Typically, “non-monogamy” merely changes the terms under which relationship-mates can behave while still remaining each other’s “property”— the terms under which they can “owe” or be “entitled to” emotional support/attention/resources or sexual access to their bodies, etc. In other words, non-monogamy typically eschews only the superficial manifestation of Monogamy’s deep framework which approaches people and their bodies and emotional energy/attention/resources, etc. as “legitimate property” of other people.

For example, under hierarchical non-monogamy, primary relationship-mates still belong to each other, but there are specific rules to govern the sharing of access to their resources and bodies— when, how, under what circumstances this access is “allowed”, as well as what relationship-mates are “allowed” to tell or withhold from their primary relationship-mates about these encounters. Often there are even specific rules governing whether/how relationship-mates can weigh-in on or limit (i.e., have “veto power” over) each other's interactions with other people. (This is all with the goal of protecting the primary relationship from any potential threats and preserving its “primary status”.)

[A real-life example was discussed in the context that prompted this conversation about a poly group having to enforce a rule against one (poly-inclined) partner in a monogamous relationship bringing their (monogamy-inclined) partner to a poly group in the for the purpose of having folks at the poly group work together to coerce the monogamous partner into “changing the rules” of the heretofore monogamous relationship. To be clear, that does not in any way challenge the framing of the partners as property of the other. Instead, it's using coercive tactics to try to “change the rules of access” governing people-as-property while explicitly accepting the framing of “people-as-property”. Not only is that a problem from an individual-level coercion perspective (which is reason enough to avoid this behaviour!), but it's also non-sensical because it reinforces the very formulation that monogamy is based on in the first place!]

Non-hierarchical polyamory is explicitly based on rejecting the formulation of relationship-mates as each others' property (though it doesn't necessarily work that way in practice); however, it does typically accept and even actively welcomes the social structures that centre and privilege romantic/sexual relationships. It approaches monogamous structures with a reformist approach to them, aimed at broadening them just enough to allow for more than one set of romantic/sexual partnerships or romantic/sexual partnerships involving more than 2 people. It is assimilationist by its very nature. It doesn't aim for more radical changes, nor does it aim to abolish monogamous structures.

My objection to Monogamy

With that understanding that “monogamy” is fundamentally about so much other than two people who are romantically/sexually involved with each other and only each other— with the understanding that the exclusivity that is the typical hallmark of “monogamy” is simply a supericial manifestation of much deeper structures of people as property which limit their behaviour according to per-determined mutual obligations and entitlements...

My problem with monogamy isn't about the situation of someone having one and only one partner of a certain type. And I would not describe a relationship as “monogamous” where people happen to be romantically/sexually (or otherwise intimately) involved with each other and only each other and where they are simultaneously actively resisting the partner-as-property construction and all its implications (including the imposition of obligations and entitlements). But I also don't know how likely that is to actually happen, especially in a social context shaped by the institution of monogamy.

Also, to be clear, I'm not against people intentionally and voluntarily taking up commitments generally (as I've discussed before [text])— it's just that I would not frame “commitments” in this context as a “contract”. (i.e., A contract is a type of static, often-coercive agreement that exist under capitalism and other economic systems too with the goal of ensuring one party certain resources/services/access to things etc., typically in exchange for other resources/services/access to things by another party, etc. by limiting what people do in the future and promising to invoke some violent intervention– typically from the state— to enforce the terms of the contract if necessary). I'd want to see commitments framed as forms of communication— about communicating where people are at in relationships, etc. And I am extremely critical of ways that people might take up banners of “non-monogamy” or “relationship anarchy” to justify people with more power avoiding various types of commitments while rendering invisible a lot of taken-for-granted work that people with less power are still expected to do (as I've discussed before [text]).

I am wary of the way people fall back onto liberal “to each their own” / “you do you” / “individual choice!” / “all choices are equally valid” default position when it comes to monogamy and critiques of monogamy. But even I have some difficulty navigating that in practice. While Monogamy is inherently coercive, alternatives to little-m monogamy— especially the ones that still rely on the institution of Mongamy's framing of person-as-property— are not necessarily any less coercive. And I recognise that resisting the institution of Monogamy and its framing of persons is very difficult to do. Not everyone can or wants to do that, and trying to force people into it will almost certainly incur more harm for them. But I also want to acknowledge that just by doing what people are doing “apolitically”, they are reinforcing the current system and that has harmful consequences for other people too.

For example, within a social context centred on and structured around couples, it's not possible to be part of a “couple” and interact socially as “a couple” or as “part of a couple”, and to enjoy the social access that goes along with that at the expense of the systematic devaluation of friendships and other forms of intimacy— to even accept a “plus 1” invitation without commentary— without contributing to the normalisation of the couple form. And while, strictly speaking, I do believe it would be theoretically possible for two people to be engaged in some sort of romantic relationship (whether or not it's also sexual in nature) with each other (and even only with each other) without that in any way being a “couple”... That's overwhelmingly not what people are doing when they're doing romantic relationships, especially when there are explicitly restrictions in placed on the relationship to keep it “exclusive”.

Having said that, it's not always easy to tell by looking at a relationship from the outside whether those things are happening. Certainly people do need to be doing work to unpack whether they “want” to connect romantically/sexually (or otherwise intimately) with only each other because there aren't other potential connections available to them at the moment that would benefit their lives, or because they're actively shutting down any of those possibilities before they develop due to having internalised ways of behaving from existence in a monogamy-centred society and immersion within all Monogamy's institutions that construct & shape desires, etc. And I think people often behave and react along these lines without necessarily intending to. So the idea of a romantic/sexual (or otherwise intimate) relationship that is between two (and only two) people (who aren't connecting in those ways with other people)— especially if they are taking any steps to make sure things stay that way... they're going to need to be working very hard to be actively resisting Monogamous structures (and if they're not, it's almost certainly Monogamy).

But also as a caveat, that doesn't mean that straying from the superficial manifestation of monogamy by engaging in multiple romantic/sexual relationships is participating any less in monogamy's framework of treating people as property and entailing certain predetermined obligations and entitlements. People can and often do enact Monogamy's destructive foundations when they're involved in (or open to or seeking) multiple romantic/sexual relationships-- and the harm is often compounded in those situations for the simple reason that there are more people involved to hurt and get hurt.

What I'm going for isn't non-monogamy: it's anti-monogamy— a complete rejection of Monogamy's framing and foundations with respect to all things, including the limitation of focus to romantic and sexual relationships, and including the framing of persons-as-property.

What does that look like in practice?

Once the “couple” is completely de-centred and society is reorganised around other things to close the gap it leaves, friendships (no longer being actively devalued) will rise to fill a more primary role in people's lives. People will acknowledge and engage in intimacy within friendships that is rarely afforded the opportunity to be acknowledged or to thrive under the current system. With more intimacy from friendship and more substantive community connections (community is a big piece of this picture for me), people won't be so isolated and basically deprived of emotional connection. (I don't agree with the necessarily socially-busy post-revolution utopia that a lot of folks seem to assume is the goal or outcome of anti-monogamy— and I think it's straight-up ableist— but I do still think community and friendship will be part of that picture.)

Under those circumstances, I think many fewer people would choose to pursue romantic relationships at all (or even specifically strictly sexual relationships, because sexual intimacy wouldn't be partitioned off into the domain of romantic relationships or special “friends-with-benefits” relationships). I think some people will still do those relationships. And some people might still do very important relationships that are romantic (and sexual). And some people might even engage in only one (at a time?) and with someone else who is also only involved in that one (at that time?). And without the artificial scarcity of intimacy that the institution of Monogamy enforces, people likely won't be so dependent on these relationships, and won't be pulled to navigate artificially-created-scarcity by treating each other as property. And more importantly, without the entire system set up to push people in that direction and deny them basic intimacy and social needs from other avenues... that will be far less “overdetermined”. And within that context, a 1-on-1 romantic (possibly sexual) relationship where participants don't have other 1-on-1 romantic (possibly sexual) relationships wouldn't be “monogamy”.

The rejection of monogamy I’m talking about doesn't really "make sense" within a context that's still centred on "couples" (whether or not individuals are expected to be participating in 1 or more of them) unless people are willing to start building alternatives from the ground up as they go (which isn't for everyone). I do think there is harm in participating in monogamous practices beyond the harm that comes to the individuals directly relating to each other-- on the level of how normalising harmful structures contributes to the harm those structures can ultimately effect. But there are different kinds of harm and different degrees of contributing to them. For example, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism but that doesn't mean we can, for instance, either stop eating or start growing all our own food without causing harm in other ways. (And while monogamy doesn't enact harm on quite the same scale except insofar as it is deployed as tools of capitalism, white supremacy and so many other powerfully harmful systems--which is still a big deal!), there is no ethical relating under Monogamy. That doesn't mean we can't build alternatives-- we can, even if the best we might be able to do (for now) are the metaphorical equivalent of temporary autonomous zones. I think those alternatives are worth building. But it can't be limited to individual choices. And individual choices aren't magically "apolitical" when they're about personal relationships.

[flying-elliska]

The transformation of Lucas Lallemant pt 1 : Hell Week.

Skam OG S3  can be more or less divided in three acts, and this is even more obvious in Skam France, which has a more...dramatic style of storytelling, let’s say. Act I : Lucas meets Eliott, struggles with his internalized homophobia, develops feelings, ends with Eliott’s apparent betrayal. Act II : Lucas is isolated, struggles, finally comes out to his friends and to the world, Eliott and Lucas reunite. Act III is what’s yet to come, the revelation of Eliott’s MI, possibly elements related to Lucas’ parents and religion, and the resolution. 

I want to take a look at Act II as a unit and the essential character developpment that takes place within it, starting from the disastrous party scene at the end of Vendredi 19h21 and ending with the paint scene in Vendredi 18h34, because this is really where we can see Lucas’s arc pivot, as he is left alone to confront himself, and the nuance with which it was done is incredible in terms of storytelling. 

Fair warning, it’s going to be a long one. 

Vendredi 19h21 : Fête de trop 

It has been pointed out by many that, whereas Isak and Martino punched into bushes and garbage cans during this scene, Lucas hurts himself until his knuckles are bloody. He’s angry at the world for sure, getting in a fight with his friends, but it’s ultimately himself he blames - for having feelings, for caring, for thinking he had a chance with Eliott, for being attracted to a boy, for wanting a family that supports him, for wanting to be loved. Chloe possibly outing him by yelling Lucas is gay in a crowd, Arthur joking about his family, Eliott kissing a girl - it brings all his worst pains and fears to a head, and things he’s been repressing for the longest time just boil over, in the shape of rage and inarticulate despair. He punches his hand into the wall because he cannot speak, cannot think, cannot do anything else. It’s violence and self-harm as a symptom of powerlessness. The look on his face at the end I read as him being totally overwhelmed.

 In the background the song talks about partying to pretend to be alright - but emptiness and chaos catch on eventually. It’s ironic in a sense because the singer is talking about glitter and kissing boys in public, things Lucas very much shies away from, but in the end the result is the same, loneliness and alienation. The association of the two brings up very old themes in queer culture, specifically things gay men have had to deal with - feeling adrift, disconnected from family and people and feelings, internalized hatred, self-harm, feeling like you have nowhere to go, putting on a happy face even when you’re spiralling out, partying as a substitute for connection, and what happens when the facade breaks. At the same time, the drop after excess can have a revelatory effect. 

Even if it’s painful, this scene is necessary and kickstarts the part of his journey where he is facing his fears on his own. The hurt is a recognition of what is happening to him and how important it is. 

Lundi 08h52 : Scared but doing it anyway

That's the definition of courage.  With his bandaged hand and the slow opening, as he puts his hoodie up, he looks like a boxer stepping into the ring. Lighting is at its most overcast, blue-tinted, dark and depressing. This clip is heartbreaking, bringing Lucas's worst fears to the light. Being mocked and ostracized, turned into a vulgar joke, having been played for a fool. 

Fear number one. He sees his friends laughing at him. Lucas is a character with huge abandonment issues, understandably. As his familial situation went sideways and his sense of self was put in turmoil, he’s relied on the normalcy of his friendgroup to keep him afloat, going to great lengths to preserve their view of him - even declaring love to a girl he feels nothing for. Them laughing would feel like the ground disappearing under his feet. 

Fear number two. We can see Alex mimicking a blowjob. Through his rant to Mika about dick shaped confetti or his reaction to “Krindr” dick picks, we can see that he seems to be uneasy when it comes to the overly sexual way the gay community is often presented. And homophobic jokes and behavior tends to be overly sexual too, reducing gayness to a series of sexual acts presented as disgusting, instead of the whole love, identity and culture aspects (not that there is anything wrong with gay sexuality in itself, but when it’s reduced to only that, it would be understandable he has issues with it, especially for a teenager who’s just discovering things, belying the cliché that all men are naturally horndogs.) He's afraid of his intimate feelings and process of discovery becoming a vulgar joke, that’s very understandable. 

Fear number three. Eliott looking at him smugly. Basically confirming that he’s a player,  that this very special connection they had, something that allowed Lucas to open up and be vulnerable and artistic and bold, and muse about alternate universes and play the piano and feel comfortable enough to be happy kissing another boy - was a lie. Eliott doesn’t care and now he’s able to be on the side of the bullies because to him - like the cliché “bisexuality” Lucas had in mind talking to the girls - his attraction to boys is just a fun side piece, he can just go back to his girlfriend afterwards, whereas Lucas can’t. He’s “stuck being gay” and he’s failed at maintaing a straight façade. 

To close it off, there’s Chloé, fulfilling the narrative purpose of a ticking clock and a reminder of Lucas’ failure at straightness and imminent outing. This of course, is not really happening, but this paranoia is very typical of being a closeted queer person, of constantly having to wonder who is going to love you anyway and who is going to reject you because even when your people are mostly liberal and tolerant, there is no way to really know because of how deep homophobia is rooted in our society (see my meta about French humor). It really is Schodinger’s unconditional love. 

And then there’s Daphné. This is the first of several ‘tonal breaks’ in this arc, in which the angst is cut with moments of levity, randomness and wacky jokes that seem a little out of place but do serve a purpose narratively and in terms of themes. In this one, she goes out of her way to praise Lucas’ masculinity. It wouldn’t surprise me she already heard rumors, going from the alarmed look on her face, and wants to reassure Lucas he is still a man in her eyes. Daphné is an interesting character to do this. Because she has little brain to mouth filter, she tends to say stupid things and offend people, but at the same time, she can break through people’s walls and isolation - the foyer, meant to bring different people together, is a symbol of this. She’s a key representative of Skam’s central theme of people being flawed, able to learn, and of -trying and reaching out, even with mixed results, being a super important thing. Therefore, it’s interesting she’s the first to reach Lucas in this difficult phase, and this will happen again later. At the same time her words about defenseless women needing a strong man is a reminder of the overwhelming clichés about gender roles that make Lucas’ life so difficult. 

Lundi 14h03 : Ennemies and Allies

Chloe's threat of outing Lucas whenever she wants gives the whole episode a feeling of urgency. She is extremely hurt and he can’t catch her, either physically or symbolically. She’s a loose cannon, and her holding Lucas’ outing hostage as revenge feels very violent. It's not clear that anybody knows yet, but she could take Lucas's choice from him any time now. His harsh and terrified words (”I’m not a f*g”) illustrate the level of denial he is trying to stay in as it’s slipping away from him, the powerlessness he feels. The scene taking place in PE class with people throwing balls at one person standing in a goal reinforces the overal symbolism of being put on the spot. 

On the opposite side, Yann's reminder of support sets up what happens later. He wants to be there for Lucas, but he’s also been hurt by his silence. He doesn’t want the squad to be Lucas’ punching ball if he can’t verbalize. 

Mardi 13h08 : Miscommunication. 

Eliott is trying to make a joke about the time they met and he couldn’t chose what to get from the vending machine ; Lucas interprets it as him saying he wants both Lucas and his gf, and he responds harshly. Lucas is pretty much standing up for himself here, as painful as it is. He signals to Eliott he's not game to just forgive and forget, to do as if what happens didn't matter. Him alluding to a choice that Eliott needs to make - there's still a sliver of hope there though, as agonizing as it seems.

Lucas not finding a place to sit and leaving the canteen represents his worst fears about coming out - being left alone. It’s a classic high school story trope, not knowing at which table to sit, eg. not fitting in anywhere, so he chooses not to feed himself. (Again, hurting himself). 

Mercredi 13h37 : Sorting through your old shit

This moment of levity after the heavy angst serves as a reminder that life, whether you are ready for it or not, goes on. It’s also the second time that the show subverts horror tropes - first in the first kiss scene for romantic purposes, here for comedic purposes with the creepy dolls everywhere and the guy with an axe. The theme is that things that look scary at first often aren’t, and can even bring unexpected gifts. The overall scene doesn’t have much impact on the plot, but it can symbolize several things - the need to do away with the messy things of the past (like all the shit in the shop and internalized homophobia), giving things that are still useful a new place where they can be better appreciated (the couch is a metaphor for Lucas being gay lmao), the difficulty of dealing with grief and your baggage alone and the need for outside help (like the shopkeeper who can’t get rid of his brother’s things), the importance of playfulness and unexpected gifts (table football). 

The girls opening up about their dating woes puts Lucas’ struggles in the larger context of teenage boys being trash, normalizing what he goes through. On the other hand, again, Daphne’s comments and Imane’s joke show that the girl squad have their own problems with gender clichés. Manon denouncing them marks her as a safe place for Lucas, as well as her going through the deeper kind of turmoil of love troubles. 

Lundi 01h48 : In the abyss

The scene is dark and drenched in blue light, giving it an oceanic, almost submarine vibe. This is Skam taking full advantage of its real time format, showing the story at a time where viewers are very likely to be in the same state of exhaustion and half-consciousness as the characters. 

Even though he doesn't show it much, Lucas is a deeply caring character. He's just been extremely burned out, possibly by his family situation, and what happened with Eliott. And yet, it's still there. We can see it here in how he comforts Manon, trying to be stoic, but it's getting to him in the end. Compassion is often much easier to extend to others than to yourself. He might punish himself for feeling too much, but he would never do that to Manon. 

This scene is, to me, the most pivotal moment of the season yet along with the piano scene : they're moments where we see Lucas's soul come to the surface. And as vulnerability is key to the plot, those moments of openness really move things along. The piano scene was Lucas letting out his more passionate, artistic, sensitive side ; this moment is more raw and ugly, about what lies beneath the anger, the despair of caring too much. And yet there is beauty and relief in owning it. In this particular context the shell of anger Lucas protects himself with is meaningless - it’s just the utter loneliness of the night and two people who are broken and lost. Manon is also from a broken home of sorts, she’s also been given a lot of reasons to give up on love. The fact that they’re able to share this intimacy of letting themselves feel like that, at a moment where words are beyond them, is however a sign that they’re not giving up. They’re feeling the feelings, as painful as it is, and they have a witness. It’s beautiful. 

Vendredi 09h14 : Exhaustion

Lucas's body is basically close to giving up on him. He can front all he wants, but he's still only human. So he goes to see the school nurse for insomnia. He thinks maybe if he can solve the physical problem, maybe get pills, he can go back to being tough and pretending nothing is wrong. The nurse’s answer - not exposing himself to any screens or blue light before sleeping - is laughably unadapted to his problems, which in turn makes the idea that Lucas can solve his problems this way ridiculous as well.

The nurse is a mess - is she cheating on her actual husband there ? Why is she talking about her (murder)fantasies to a student ? Teacher’s back acne ? She illustrates that adults still have problems (again, normalizing what Lucas goes through) and that life in general is messy and you need people on your side who can be there even though you are going through ugly, difficult things. Lucas cannot talk to her, they’re not on the same wavelength at all, but there’s still someone he can talk to. The medecine is not pills, it’s human support and trust. 

Vendredi 17h05 : Trust issues 

This clip is very painful to watch. 

First Eliott’s drawing. At this point in the story it feels like a cruel joke. This guy played him, and now he’s talking about destiny ? Lucas really bought into the whole Polaris thing, we could see he was starving for a real connection, and maybe he thinks Eliott is using that against him, tugging on the heartstrings like a true artsy fuckboi. At the same time, the loneliness that emanates from the drawing is heartbreaking for us, who know what’s up with Eliott. 

Lucas decides to go talk to Yann. That’s his destiny. I thought he was going to walk up to Eliott for a moment, the filming is deliberately ambiguous, but no. In a way, he’s choosing himself, deciding to bring stability to his life by opening up to the guy who’s been his main support system for years : Yann. And he lays it all on the table - his problems with his family, his insomnia, the mess with Chloe, the difficulty talking, having a crush of sorts for Yann, falling in love with Eliott. He’s so brave. He banks on his ability to trust Yann, he wants to believe he’ll be there for him. He’s finally coming out to someone on his own terms, with clear words. 

It doesn’t work. Now, I never believed Yann was homophobic - his face only shuts down when Lucas starts talking about all the people who already know. But after Lucas’ slow, painful journey towards opening up, it feels like a bucket of ice water in the face. However, it is thematically appropriate. 

This story arc tries to balance two concepts very delicately : on one side, as a teenager it’s important to realize that you’re not as alone as you think, not alone struggling. On the other hand, both internalized homophobia and French culture’s latent homophobia (that makes people do shitty things even though they’re not homophobic at heart, without realizing it) make this process of teenage alienation vs self discovery and acceptance, a thousand times more painful than it needs to be. Ending the episode on this note signifies that the struggle is real, that however brave you might be, sometimes the world is going to try and slap you down anyway. Thankfully, the story doesn’t end there, but for Lucas, this is the bottom of the pit. As his instagram post says ‘god needs your lifeboat as an ashtray’. Sometimes your best efforts mean nothing. This seems like a very pessimistic and cruel conclusion but I believe it’s an important beat in the story, recognizing that sometimes things go wrong through no fault of your own. It’s the system that is to blame, that has not given the tools to Yann to react properly and for the both of them to communicate better and for Lucas to accept who he is and not hurt people around him in order to hide. They’ve gone the road of validation over comfort and I think it’s a very interesting choice. (Even though I can also understand people who needed a more positive message and were hurt by this). But like a lot of queer people, I’ve had my share of half-botched coming outs and it’s important to show how you come back from that. 

...

So in a nutshell : this week, we bear witness to the slow death of Lucas’ tough, uncaring, player straight guy facade. His feelings have reached a boiling point, and he can’t ignore them any longer, it’s taking a toll on his body and isolating him from his friends. The moments of levity serve to dedramatize and normalize what Lucas goes through, encouraging him to reach out, while at the same time, the show takes his pain and fear seriously, by showing the minute toll it takes on his health and the less than ideal reaction of the people around him. However, through it all, he finds the courage to keep facing his feelings and opening up. He is staring his worst fears in the face - abandonment, ostracization, having his feelings used against him - and he still manages to choose trust. Eliott might have been a catalyst, but in the end he chooses to do what’s right for himself. He talks, even though it’s almost a moment of symbolic death, but the transformation can take root from there. Honesty is grueling sometimes, but it’s still necessary.  It’s better than letting the lie ruin your health and your relationship, better than hurting yourself in an attempt to push down the truth, better than violent powerlessness or night time devastation. Lucas is so good at wearing a mask, but how he reacts in this crisis is revelatory of his own deepest need for change and love. 

In short, I love this character with the intensity of a thousand suns and even though it's super painful I love that we got to go on this journey with him.

Thank you for reading this monster of a post, and see you next time for pt 2 : Acceptance ! 

[azveille]

The truth about anxiety – without it we wouldn’t have hope

In a world so full of uncertainty it’s little wonder so many of us feel stressed. But understanding it can change how you feel. Why do so many people these days seem so stressed out and anxious? It’s a common question, among mental health professionals and laypeople alike, but there’s a case to be made that it’s exactly upside down. How come there’s anyone whoisn’t paralysed by anxiety, every hour of every day? After all, anxiety thrives in conditions of uncertainty – and nowadays the world is full of potential threats we don’t fully understand and can’t control.

Most of us just have to take it on trust that planes won’t fall out of the sky, or that the milk in our fridge won’t give us listeria. Sudden, unpredictable movements in the global financial system threaten to ruin anyone’s livelihood at any moment; plus now we have all the many unknowns around Brexit, an unstable liar in charge of America’s nuclear codes, and the omnipresent spectre of climate change. And as if all that weren’t enough, we spend our days marinating in an online environment designed to stoke panic about any remaining threats we might have been managing to ignore.

Some definitions may help here. “Stress”, as psychologists tend to use it, means an immediate response to an external pressure, and a moderate amount can actually be a good thing: totally unstressed people never revise for exams, or meet work deadlines. In most everyday contexts, when the external pressure stops, so does the stress. Which means that by far the simplest way to deal with stress, whenever possible, is to deal with whatever’s bothering you head on – to tackle the difficult piece of work, to talk to the friend you’ve fallen out with – or, failing that, to distance or distract yourself from its source. (Persistent and chronic stress requires a different approach.)

Get Society Weekly: our newsletter for public service professionals

Read more

But anxiety is a particular kind of internal response to stress, and it’s frequently far more fraught. As the Australian author Sarah Wilson points out in her combined memoir and anxiety self-help manual, First, We Make the Beast Beautiful, the problem isn’t simply that there are a lot of reasons to be anxious. It’s also that, perversely, society actually rewards certain anxious behaviours, such as being frenetically busy and driven – while the “reward” for managing to free yourself from anxiety might be a reputation for laziness, complacency, or showing insufficient concern about the state of the world. Then there’s the fact that anxiety is self-reinforcing: once you’re feeling anxious, you’re primed to seek further things to feel anxious about – including, as if that vicious circle weren’t frustrating enough, your anxiety itself.

Anxiety, at root, isn’t a bizarre psychological anomaly, but a fundamental aspect of human functioning

“Anxiety”, of course, is also the name for a family of official psychological disorders. But it’s a condition that makes it unusually clear that the line between “mental illness” and “ordinary human distress” is a subjective one, dependent as much on cultural conventions as on science. The main reason “generalised anxiety disorder” is so much more prevalent now is that it was only defined as a disorder in psychiatry’s bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, in 1980. (If you feel “keyed up or on edge”, or have “difficulty concentrating”, it’s possible you qualify.) And one main reason it surged from 2001 onwards was a concerted media push by GlaxoSmithKline, after it received US approval to market its antidepressant Paxil (Seroxat in the UK) in the treatment of anxiety. “Local newscasts around [the United States] reported that as many as 10 million Americans suffered from an unrecognised disease,” the journalist Brendan Koerner has written. “Viewers were urged to watch for the symptoms: restlessness, fatigue, irritability, muscle tension, nausea, diarrhoea, and sweating …”

To be clear, none of this is to suggest that those with a diagnosed anxiety disorder don’t have a real illness, or that medication isn’t often part of the solution: “The basic premise for an anxiety disorder, or when anxiety becomes a clinical problem, is when anxiety controls our life, rather than us being able to control our anxiety,” says Robert Edelmann, emeritus professor of forensic and clinical psychology at the University of Roehampton. But it’s also a reminder that anxiety, at root, isn’t a bizarre psychological anomaly, but a fundamental aspect of human functioning. The problem, explains the psychology writer James Clear, author of Atomic Habits, is that it’s a response evolution bequeathed us for a setting radically different from today’s.

All anxiety contains a kernel of good news: you wouldn’t feel anxious if there weren’t the chance of things going well

Prehistoric humans lived in an “immediate-return environment”, as other mammals still do: their moment-to-moment choices mattered because of the immediate difference they made. You saw a predator and felt a surge of anxiety, which motivated you to evade it. Or you felt dangerously hungry, and anxiety focused your attention on quickly finding food. Once the threat was resolved, the anxiety would evaporate. But modern humans live in a “delayed-return environment”. We get paid for our work at the end of the week or month; we study for educational qualifications that take years. When we save money – or don’t – the consequences might not be felt for decades. And so the anxiety has nowhere to go. Instead, it accumulates and curdles.

Advertisement

This helps explain why national and international news events, such as Brexit or the election of Donald Trump, are such a widespread source of personal anxiety, including of the clinical kind. Some people – undocumented immigrants in Trump’s America, for example – are affected in direct, unambiguous ways. But even if you ultimately won’t be, you’ll have no way of knowing that for some time. Moreover, it often feels like there’s nothing you can do in response – no equivalent to the prehistoric hunter-gatherer’s decision to start running away, or go looking for food. When no constructive action seems possible, we resort to worry and rumination, which feel somehow constructive, even though they aren’t. One reaction to the anxiety of being immersed in a 24-hour news cycle “is that people try to find out more information, because anxiety is about a lack of control and they believe that having more information will make them feel more in control”, says the American therapist Lori Gottlieb, author of the forthcoming book Maybe You Should Talk to Someone. “But it doesn’t – it just makes people feel more anxious.”

Living in the moment? Good - but don’t forget the past or future

Read more

This is why most non-pharmaceutical solutions to anxiety, whatever its cause, involve the limited and realistic exertion of control: figuring out what constructive actions you can take, and taking them, while refraining from struggling to control things you can’t, which is a recipe for additional anxiety. (This is the “dichotomy of control”, a distinction dating to the Stoics of ancient Greece and Rome.) You can’t personally guarantee a comfortable retirement, or long-term physical health, let alone the optimal relationship between Britain and the rest of Europe. But you can calculate what you can afford to save, and track your saving. You can exercise a few times a week, and eat more leafy greens. You can take local, concrete political action. Whether or not you end up achieving your desired goal, your anxiety levels will almost certainly fall.

Finally, it’s worth recognising – as the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaardobserved in The Concept of Anxiety back in 1844 – that all anxiety contains a kernel of good news: you wouldn’t feel anxious in the first place if you had no freedom, and if there weren’t at least the possibility of things turning out well. “One would have no anxiety if there were no possibility whatever,” wrote the psychologist Rollo May, paraphrasing Kierkegaard. If you knew with absolute certainty that life from now on would bring only failure and defeat, you might well be depressed, but you wouldn’t feel on edge. Anxiety is the experience of knowing that life might bring success, fulfilment and joy, combined with the fear that you don’t know how to ensure that’s what will happen. And while severe anxiety can certainly be a debilitating problem, demanding treatment, some sense of uncertainty about the future is surely part of what makes life worth living. If you ever actually managed to rule out the potential for any nasty surprises, you’d find that you’d ruled out the possibility of any good ones, too.

[greaterthannine-blog]

Eccentricity

When You Care For Something So Much And It's Constantly On Your Mind,

 Is That Not Insanity?

 But Don't Adoration and Determination Deserve Nothing Less?

CONTEMPLATING AND FORMULATING the next who-knows-how many years of life beyond high school has been a moderately [okay extraordinarily] daunting task. Reflecting on my primary and secondary school careers, my life began and ended with K-12; I had never legitimately invested time or thought into what would make my life fulfilling! Having such a painfully structured pathway leading up to May 2017 was the only future I had concretely envisioned. I didn't consider my passions, my interests, my dreams, or what my life would look like after the demise of my minor years. Alright, sure, I knew what my interests were, but I surely didn't know which occupation(s) I wished to pursue, what I wanted to accomplish, what I needed to do to be content! But let's face it, only one in eight billion people sincerely know their genuine life-long desires, and what their lives will be beyond childhood. And those people are shits. Brilliant shits! But alas, still shits.

But I can't help wondering, why can't I be one of those shits? Just a late blooming shit? I've confirmed my interests; arrowed my passions; created goals and ultimate fantastical aspirations, even those from my single digit days; and now I am bent on achieving those objectives almost to obsession. I don't want regrets; I cannot have regrets. I've already accumulated three colossal ones in my eighteen almost nineteen years, and I refuse to bear another. And if at all possible, I will do my utmost to remedy those which I already possess.

While not one of the gargantuan regrets [I'll discuss those in subsequent paragraphs], an overarching regret I have is not staying true to my personal style. This one was much more applicable during middle school [in regards to fashion anyways, petty social extremities were the primary explanation for that era]. Being one of the few Asian people, let alone half-Asians, I really felt myself an outsider in those three godforsaken years, and in attempt to feel a shred of belonging I conformed; I did what was "cool" and "acceptable" and whatever trends were in and what the "popular" kids were into. You know, the formative years of the "basic" stereotype, plein de jeggings, fleece-lined Under Amour hoodies, and the first steps to what I call the Starbucks Epidemic, where sugary froth reigned and still remains supreme over palpable coffee. Heinous times am I right? But nonetheless, should be acknowledged.

That in mind, I did what I could to learn about being Chinese, Chinese American and both their histories, particularly through school projects almost to the point of eccentricity. For my IB Personal Project I studied historical Chinese ceramics and created my own pieces mimicking those dynastic styles. My IB History Internal Assessment focused on the American Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, and my IB Extended Essay compared that exclusion act with Canada's equivalent Chinese Immigration Act of 1923, as well as their causes, implementations, implications and consequences. And while that was all well and good, it really wasn't enough. I was still alone in my endeavor, and there's only so much you can learn about Chinese and Chinese-American history smack-dab in the middle of the United States. I knew I needed more exposure, more information, and help in doing so. 

Though regarding my three largest regrets, in these next few months I'll begin the painstaking process of rectifying my mistakes; amending my decisions and fright of my younger days, the largest of which is my heritage, and particularly that on my Chinese side. I've always been proud of my ethnicity; there is seldom doubt about that. While this isn't the most commendable attribute, I recall many occasions where I tooted my naïve horn and frankly bragged about my half Chinese and half Italian genetic code. However, that boasting was also because I felt alone; I yearned recognition, both from my peers and community but also from other Chinese, other Asians, and other half-Asians. Yet the difference between me and them was I was the only fourth-generation American in town, with a diluted sense of Chinese tradition and culture, and not a smeck of Cantonese to boot, while everyone else had a parent from their ethnic Asian country of origin. I felt like a fake, like I was performing a ruse, and I hated it, so I tried to convey my validity as an Asian by tossing the term left and right.... When in reality I felt inadequate, and that I wasn't welcome anywhere. That insecurity was reinforced when fellow Chinese people relayed their true opinions on my situation: That because I, "don't speak Chinese," and, "haven't been to China," I am not, "really Chinese." I already knew that of course, despite the sympathy of family and friends, but it really hit the noggin hard when another Chinese person said it aloud, and boy did I feel like a lying, indecent, dishonest schmuck. What cheer!

And for those reasons among a galaxy of others, I decided to take a gap year in hopes of connecting with my family, my culture and my heritage overall; of exploring and discovering what it means to be Chinese-American and how my experiences and perspectives are significant. If you know me person-to-person, beyond the confines of this digital space, I spoke of a program that my mother joined back in the 1980's to do just what I described above. While that program no longer exists, there is a modern equivalent based in San Francisco called Friends of Roots, to which I applied for their 2018 year. Indeed, it is a fairly petite program, but their work is incredible, and in addition to the copious research, in July Friends of Roots takes participants to their Chinese ancestral villages. In China. Now how fucking neat is that? That being said, I am more than exuberantly delighted to announce that those dreams will come to fruition, and have been accepted into the soon-to-be-commencing 2018 cohort! I mean, I just found out a week ago I was accepted. Imagine what an ordeal waiting for that decision was. I was bouncing off walls.

Now, this is where the Grand Move comes into play [you know, like The Grand Tour, but not]. Because the program is run in San Francisco, California, I will be schlepping my life off to the Bay in order to freely and easily participate in all this program's intensities. Thankfully, my entire family extended family resides in either the Bay [or LA], so the territory is completely familiar, and I'll have a place to stay for the duration of the program. Though I should add, because I aim to attend university in California, the likelihood of my returning to Colorado for extended periods of time is slim. So to my friends whom I haven't had a chance to bid farewell: I bid farewell, and you are incredible people; keep doing what you're doing and keep your head held high. That's what I intend to do, so let's do it together.

[kalachand97-blog]

New Post has been published on Globeinfrom

New Post has been published on https://globeinform.com/angara-to-govt-enhance-internet-to-reinforce-jobs-in-rural-ph/

Angara to gov't: Enhance internet to reinforce jobs in rural PH

Metro Manila (CNN Philippines, April sixteen) — A senator is urging the authorities to fast-track its development of internet connectivity within the country to assist create greater excessive-price on-line jobs in rural areas of the Philippines.

In a press release issued Sunday, Senator Sonny Angara stated higher net connectivity inside the united states’s a ways-flung region could help the government Improve its Rural Impact Sourcing Program, which ambitions to target unemployment in the rural Philippines through higher get right of entry to internet-primarily based jobs in disadvantaged communities.

“At the same time as the IT-BPM (IT- business procedure management) industry keeps to thrive as one of the USA’s pinnacle career carriers, there seems to be a developing disparity in opportunities provided to human beings dwelling in our essential cities, in place of the ones in far-flung provinces,” the Angara stated.

“We ought to bridge this gap and convey opportunities in the geographical region where they are wished the maximum,” he added.

Effect sourcing includes growing to get right of entry to virtual markets and commercial enterprise manner outsourcing (BPO) in some distance-flung regions of u. S . A ..

The rural Effect Sourcing Application, which becomes applied in 2013 and is now below the Department of Statistics and Communications Generation (DICT), goals unemployment in excessive-populace rural areas with low employment because of loss of investors.

The Angara stated higher internet access in those areas will bolster this system and help provide possibilities to Filipinos within attain of their homes.

“Dapat maroon din sang portunid a kanji-kana lang mag probity. Hindi Na adapt will kailan gang punta pa as Metro Manila o a Cebu para Maka Kuh a ng online jobs [They should also have opportunities in their own provinces. They shouldn’t have to go to Metro Manila or Cebu to get online jobs]. They need to be able to live in which their families are and feature significant paintings,” he stated.

Numerous Impact sourcing operations have been established in the Philippines.

The Touch Middle Affiliation of the Philippines stated there are Impact sourcing operations Kapatangan in Lanao del Norte, Puerto Princesa in Palawan, Balanga in Bataan, and in San Nicolas in Ilocos Norte.

Angara stated the IT-BPM industry, which employed some 1.15 million Filipinos and generated USD22.nine billion (Php 1.14 trillion) in revenue in 2016, can pave the manner in the direction of more inclusive increase in the Philippines.

“The internet does now not only join us with our pals and cherished ones. It’s also a way to create jobs to make our economic system more inclusive. We must work collectively towards starting up extranet opportunities for all of our countrymen,” Angara stated.

3 fast and Easy Approaches to reinforce online Profits Right Now

From time to time in our haste to earn more money from anything we’re promoting at the net, we neglect to do a little simple math. Although it is often proper that the more you sell, the extra you’ll make – it is not the handiest way to growth your “backside line”.

The subsequent are 3 time-and-tested (and On occasion omitted) Approaches to quick and without problems double or even triple your income on-line.

1) Reduce your costs and expenses.

Appears apparent enough, however, what a number of human beings sincerely are doing this? Heck, huge corporations know this and do it often.

It is easy math. The less your expenses, the more you get to hold. In case you’re pulling $50,000 a yr from your on-line commercial enterprise and feature fees of 20%, then that’s a total of $10,000. Your commercial enterprise truly most effective made $forty,000. But, If you Cut your costs by way of the half, all the way down to 10%, then that’s $5,000 more you get to put in your pockets! Your earnings simply went from $forty,000 to $45,000.

Here are some brief and sensible Methods to lower your internet-related charges and fees.

A. When you have an internet website, get cheaper web website hosting. This could now not make much of an Effect If you only have one web website. But, In case you run a couple of websites, the charges can add up speedy. less expensive web hosting is money in your pocket.

B. If you do have a domain, learn HTML and update it yourself. Are you continue to paying a person to do your site updates and preservation? How a great deal is it costing you? What could you do with the cash you’ll save? Html isn’t always difficult to learn all. It’s now not a programming language. If your web page calls for complex programming, then, yes, pay for it. However, if it’s miles simply HTML, you may shop a package simply updating and preserving it yourself. So, just go to a bookshop and choose up a duplicate of HTML four dummies. You may not regret it.

C. Consolidate your phone offerings (cell telephone, house cell phone, ISP, cable) underneath one centralized plan. You can additionally want to recollect using a telecom networking advertising and marketing organization wherein you may use your very own telecommunications services and in reality, get paid to accomplish that. It is able to upload as much as some satisfactory more money for the usage of belongings you already use and commonly wouldn’t get paid for.

D. Pass up on buying the state-of-the-art tech devices unless they’re definitely essential to the fulfillment of your commercial enterprise. You’ll be hesitant to do that ultimate one, but you may nonetheless make cash on-line the use of a cheap, vintage computer within the equal manner you could with a present day one. I recognize, due to the fact I’ve revamped $100k in revenues with just one internet web site the usage of the identical dilapidated laptop I bought returned within the late 90s!

2) Get Free Advertising

Though advertising prices can logically be coupled with business costs, I area this in its very own magnificence, as you cannot absolutely place a charge at the blessings you get from it.

Everyone in advertising must realize that “word-of-mouth” is the maximum effective form of Advertising and marketing. Why? As it’s Free! And since it expenses you nothing, your commercial enterprise can only gain from it. This, of the path, is assuming that what is being advertised approximately your commercial enterprise is tremendous; no longer poor.

Adequate, so how are you going to go approximately getting Loose Advertising and marketing? Right here are 3 Methods I have accomplished so with wonderful achievement.

A. offer excellent customer support. Does this appear surprising? One satisfied patron can move a long manner inside the shape of Free Advertising. As many as 50% of the customers who visit and make a purchase on simply one of my websites are referred by their friends. Why? because I try and make it a point to maintain my clients satisfied. glad customers identical Unfastened Marketing for my websites. Does this take effort and time? yes… And It is nicely well worth it.

Here’s a quick tip: Whilst someone makes a buy from you, include for your ‘thanks’ page or their e-mail receipt a word thanking them and asking them to tell their friends approximately you. I’ve located that this has labored better than the ones ‘advocate-our-site’ scripts.

B. Take part and put up regularly on boards. Whilst doing so, be sure to area your ‘signature’ at the bottom with every publish. Your signature should have a hyperlink to your internet web page (if any). The hyperlink’s anchor text must additionally be a keyword that is applicable in your website. I wager you knew this one!

C. e-mail your friends (no spamming!) the ultra-modern and most thrilling information, jokes or occasions that you recognize that they had like. Inspire them to the percentage it with their online friends. encompass a hyperlink inside the email in your internet website online within the signature phase. The key is to send them something you know they may be inquisitive about. This works like an attraction. As your e-mail spreads virally in a spam-Unfastened way, humans will see your hyperlink, click on it and visit your web page.

The cease end result of applying these Loose Advertising strategies will be dozens, loads, and perhaps thousands of site visitors for your site that you in any other case might now not have had. I’ve given no mathematical figures Right here, because ‘valuable’ is the handiest word I will consider totally free Advertising.

three) Purchase for much less

This one’s specifically useful for the ones individuals who Buy wholesale and sell at retail, buyers and every person else who incorporates products.

Hi there, you are in this to make the most money you could. That said, why now not get your merchandise for less and pocket the financial savings?

Good enough, allow’s do a little brief math…

In case you’re promoting items that fee you $10 and you are selling them for $15 after markup, then it really is a $five profit for you. But, If you’re capable of getting the ones same objects for $7 and nonetheless promote them for $15, then this is an $eight income for you as an alternative! In other words, you just gave yourself a raise of 20%. it truly is like getting a further $20 for every $100 in items you sell. And they’re still the very same objects. You simply had been able to purchase them for less!

Over the years this can translate into thousands of more greenbacks in your pocket: $a hundred becomes $120; $1,000 will become $1, two hundred; $10,000 will become $12,000 and so on.

properly, it’s it. those are 3 validated, short and Easy Ways to get your Earnings hovering. There may be nothing complex or resourceful approximately them. put this sensible know-how to use Proper away and shortly.you will be able to see AND remember the greater bucks for your pocket. — Copyright 2006.