The Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) has issued a letter, urging the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee to reject President Obama’s nomination of Chai Feldblum, to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. On their website, the headline for this article reads Highly Controversial EEOC Nominee Chai Feldblum Thinks Polyamory is a Sidekick of Pippi Longstocking.

Um, wait a sec. This is misleading, and while I’m not surprised that this group is trying to sway its readers, if you just read the article, it’s plain as day. It was actually TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty who said the quote, and it was, “Ask a typical American about ‘polyamory,’ and they would try to recall whether she was a sidekick of Winnie the Pooh or Pippi Longstocking. Chai Feldblum has written extensively about polyamory – the practice of having multiple sexual partners concurrently. She, of course, is in favor of it and wants the government to treat these “relationships” the same as one man/one woman marriage.

Ouch. Relationship is in quotes. This is for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Does this mean I could NOT be hired for a job if they knew I was in an open relationship?

Feldblum is criticized for “believing that a person’s religious beliefs (what she calls ‘belief liberty’) can be trumped by ’sexual liberty.’ Feldblum has stated, ‘I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.’

Upon further reading, Feldblum explains herself rather well, saying, “Once a religious person or institution enters the stream of commerce by operating an enterprise such as a doctor’s office, hospital, bookstore, hotel, treatment center, and so on, I believe the enterprise must adhere to a norm of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.”

So sexual orientation should not be discriminated against, regardless of the establishment’s religious beliefs? Makes sense to me. Yet this is one of the views that are “too radical and too contemptuous of the free exercise of religious liberty guaranteed by the Constitution’s First Amendment.”

Religious liberty. . .this sounds like religious freedom to me. In fact, the Constitution’s First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Feldblum isn’t trying to prohibit the free exercise of religous establishments. She’s asking that they abide by the same laws, even if that means a citizen’s freedom from religon.

In browsing the TVC website, I also found these choice links.

This video where Feldblum is criticized for brazenly claiming that “Gay sex is GOOD.” This would be in context to heterosexual sex, of course, which I’m sure the TVC has a hard enough time accepting as healthy

and this link, called the Causes and Cures Of Homosexuality And Gender Identity Disorders, where they give a list of organizations available for those who are struggling with homosexual attractions.

As I read all this crap, I’m reminded of Patrick Swayze in Donnie Darko.

And we all know how that ended.

Tiger Woods.  Yes, I’m going to comment on this, because it’s another example of how the monogamy paradigm has wobbled, and another idol has come crashing down. 

Tiger Woods, the proverbial boy next door, has admitted to having an affair.

Now, Tiger is no god, but he is someone we hold to very high standards.  Practically bred for the golfing spotlight by a pageant-mom-trapped-in-dad’s-clothing, Tiger played it straight, kept his nose clean, and became a role model for children worldwide.  He maintained a drama-free existence in the tabloid’s eye for over a decade, and now he’s being exposed as a liar and a cheater.  

Now, wait a second.

His affairs are none of our business.  He didn’t lie to us.  He’s still an amazing golfer. He’s still a likely role-model I guess, and yes, he lied to the one person he’s supposed to be the most honest with – his wife and life partner - but has anyone stopped to ask why?  Why would someone so great do something so. . .lame?        

This is the model of monogamy.

Now before everyone gets all accusatory, saying I’m anti-monogamy and think polyamory is the truth and the light and all that, let me clarify - I don’t care what your relationship model is, as long as it’s one of honesty, and from what I can tell, monogamy doesn’t have a very good track record.   

45-55% of married women and 50-60% of married men engage in extramarital sex at some time or another during their relationship (Atwood & Schwartz, 2002 – Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy).

If over half of us cheat, why do we hold each other to such high standards of fidelity?  We expected Tiger to be faithful, and when he wasn’t we were shocked and disappointed.  Are we any better?  The above statistics say no.  Over half of us are acting on our true desires, and that doesn’t even cover the rest of us who want to. 

Why are cheating, lying and deception tolerated as the “unfortunate norm,” instead of demanding honesty and reassessing the status quo?  People need to start having real conversations with each other about what’s really going on in their relationships.  Instead, there’s an expectation with marriage that your spouse will be the only one you see naked for the rest of your existence, and this is non-negotiable. 

If we do try to negotiate, we are called sluts or deviants.  We are told that if our partner wants anything besides us (their one and only, til death do we part), there must be something wrong with the relationship, something wrong with us.  “There’s a reason they strayed,” we’re told with sideways glances.  Or the perpetrator is said to have emotional issues.  “I am dealing with my behavior and personal failings. . . I will strive to be a better person.”  Tiger, you’ve only done what over half of America has done.  We are trained to lie to our partners, then we condemn each other for it.  

I’m not mad at Tiger for cheating.    As usual, he was just doing what he was told.

Walking down 2nd Avenue in downtown Seattle with my 13-year-old daughter, I see a group of guys ahead, in their late 20’s/ early 30’s.  They’re hanging out, shooting the shit, smoking and minding their own business, but I instinctively walk to the outside of my daughter, shielding her from their potential catcalls and advances.  I’ve already prepped myself with my one-liner, a retort that will let them know I mean business, hardening my face to say, “No, I’m not fucking interested.” 

Pulling my daughter along beside me, we make it through their circle with only one of them grunting, “Damn, girl,” and as we pass by I let my anger subside.  The anger is still there, though.  This is the mentality we have to have in the city, this bitter anger toward bums, gangsters, drunks – everyone who harasses us as we walk down the street, and as women it’s something we have to deal with on a daily basis. 

Being a woman means having to be more aware of your surroundings.  There are situations that don’t affect men the same way.  Walking down the street requires you to always look a block ahead, to see who you may have to avoid.  Men experience this too, but for different reasons.  When choosing a place to park, you have to consider how far the walk to the car will be when you leave, in case it’s dark.  You do check the backseat before you get in your car.  If you’re smart, you carry mace, and you have your hand on it when you’re unsure of your surroundings.  Jogging alone at night, like I see so many men doing, is not an option.

These are not things women should have to consider.

This is not a man-bashing post, or a fear blog.  This isn’t about “why women have it so much harder.”  I think we all have our harnesses, and neither gender has it worse than the other.  I am fully aware that men are raped and sexually assaulted as well, and I’m not saying men are the enemy.  The truth is, these things hurt us all, because it puts up a wall between the sexes.  We’re all in a bad place when a woman can’t walk down the street without being harassed.  It can change the way she thinks.  And when men are constantly viewed as potential rapists, it’s bound to stir up some ugly feelings. 

I’m not saying I don’t trust men.  I’m saying I don’t trust rapists, and how can I tell the difference?

Perhaps it’s this city finally getting to me.  I remember when I lived in the suburbs, I could go to the gas station without being asked, “Where’s yo man?”  My daughter could walk to the park (ok, with a friend), and not worry about bringing her mace.  My daughter did not own mace.  I want to show her a different world than this, but the reality is harsher than I expected.   

Where do we even begin to resolve this, or to work towards positive change?

“I’m going to return to the Lord the way He put me on this earth.”

This is something my Grandmother said to me when I was 12-years-old, after I had pierced my ears for the first time.  She was a very religious woman, and was against making any changes to the body God had given her.  The body is a temple, and all that.  Forget the negative marks on her soul, she was justified by the good book, and mortal sins included putting holes in your ear lobes.

While her phrase meant nothing to me at the time, her words stayed with me and I often look at my life to see what other “holes” I’ve made, literally or figuratively. 

Recently I purchased some new makeup.  It’s a “delicate blend of minerals - so gentle you can sleep in it!”  Three months ago that would have meant nothing to me, but suddenly, at the age of 31, I’m finally embracing my femininity.  And by embracing, I mean wrapping my $90-jean-clad-legs around it and squeezing it for all it’s worth. 

Standing in front of the mirror the other day, frantically “swirling, tapping and buffing” my new powder foundation, exactly like Gracie taught me, it occurred to me that I couldn’t buy this for someone and just set them loose.  This is a personal process, and I would have to pass on the wisdom just as it was passed on to me, or risk them getting powder on their sweater.   

As soon as I realized this was important to me, I stood looking in the mirror at the creation before me.  From my painted toenails to the tips of my dyed hair, I am fake.  If there were some fancy body scan that detected changes to the body’s natural state of being, I would set off at least ten alarms, and quite frankly, I’m a poor example of a girl.  There are many women that require so much more before they allow themselves to leave the house.  I let my hair air dry.  I am afraid of tanning beds.  It only takes me 20 minutes to get ready in the morning,  including a shower.  

What’s a one-word oxymoron?   Naturalize.

I realized I am so fully entrenched in the ways I’ve altered myself, I no longer think of it as work.  I shave my legs, I pluck my eyebrows, I have acrylic nails, I wear foundation, bronzer, mineral veil, blush, lipstick, eyeshadow primer, eyebrow definition, three layers of eyeshadow, eyeliner and mascara every day of my life.  I have five different perfumes. 

I’ve long since forgotten what my natural hair color is.  I have seven tattoos and have had up to ten piercings.  I want fake boobs and a tummy tuck.  I spend hours of my life straightening or curling my hair, and piling so much product onto my face, hair and body I could start a wax factory.  Push up bras, girdles, corsets, slimming jeans, control-top panty hoes, three-inch heels, curlers, straighteners, attachments, free kits.     

All of this is what it takes to be “me.”  And it IS me, because in one way or another my whole life has been altered by my appearance, good or bad.  Would my boyfriends love me if I wasn’t pretty?  Probably.  Would they have given me the chance to get to know me if I wasn’t?  If I could live in my delusions I would say yes. 

What does all this mean?  Could any of you go into the ground they way you arrived?  My Grandmother did.  I imagine it would be freeing to have no conditions to abide by, no beauty box to stuff yourself into.  I also cherish the life my fake self has provided for me, and to that end, will work to keep her happy. . .but sometimes I wonder what I would look like if I’d never met her.

Adam Lambert’s racy performance*  at the 2009 American Music awards, where he “simulated fellatio with a male dancer and kissed male keyboardist Tommy Ratliff,” has been edited for West Coast viewers.  Edited, as in removed.  According to this article in MSNBC, Adam Lambert believes this is discrimination.  

The Associated Press reports that ABC says more than 1,500 people called to complain about Lambert’s performance.  While I agree that the act was shocking, why were the two homosexual acts the only two that were edited out? 

I was a little disappointed in Lambert’s defense, where he said, ”Shock is fun, shock rock is like something that existed, for example, like in the ’70s, Alice Cooper … David Bowie, you had artists that liked to push the envelope and that’s what made them so fresh.”  I get what he’s saying here, but it seemed like he missed the point of his own cause.

He got closer to the heart of the matter when he said, “There’s a big double standard, female pop artists have been doing things provocative like that for years, and the fact that I’m a male, and I’ll be edited and discriminated against could be a problem.”  

In a sense he’s right, it is because he’s male.  But the person he kissed was also male, and that’s where the difference lies.  It is true that female artists aren’t discriminated against as much, (for example  the kiss between Madonna and Britney at the 2003 VMA’s wasn’t edited out for West Coast viewers), but the bigger double standard is that they didn’t edit him simulating fellatio with a woman (at 1:13 in the video).  

Lambert’s performance was incredibly risqué for national television, but why?  Apparently the two men being led around by chains, or him vigorously rubbing a dancer’s vagina weren’t in poor taste, but two men kissing pushed them too far.

EDIT:  The link to the video has been deleted out of my blog three times now, deemed inappropriate by Dick Clark.  This is scary stuff, people.  Here I am searching for a video that does not exist, knowing it existed mere hours ago.  Leave it to America to rewrite history, or erase it.  Yes, it was a stupid video of some pop artist we may never hear from again (Good Morning America already cancelled his slot on their show), but if they can censor this, they can censor anything, at their whim.  Does this remind anyone of 1984? 

It’s all going into a memory hole.

*It should be noted that the only remaining link I could find was in someone’s blog whose opinions vastly differ from my own.

I’m sad today, and seeing one big, overwhelming downside to non-monogamy.

What happens when your non-primary relationship progresses farther and more spectacularly than you ever thought possible?  You don’t really expect to meet someone and fall head over heels for them.  I never even considered it, since I was already head over heels for Luke.  To be lucky enough to fall for two men?  Pshaw.  Well, it happened, and there was no turning back, and it was a glorious thing.  There are no limits to love, I say.

 There are no limits to love.  Unfortunately, with polyamory, there are still rules.

There are certain things a secondary relationship can’t have, and what if those things are really important? 

When two people are together for long enough, the relationship takes on a life of its own.  It’s a very precious thing, very personal, and after a while it seems unnatural and unfair to place rules on it.  But it must be done, because the rules are there for a reason.  In many ways my secondary relationship has to be looked at in context to my primary relationship, because without that recognition, the relationship wouldn’t have been allowed to progress or even develop.  I am appreciative to Luke for every success with Myke. 

That said, these things cease to matter after a while, as the relationship deserves its own recognition of being self-supporting.  We fought long and hard to get where we are, Myke and I, and the issues we encountered and overcame were done independent of my relationship with Luke.   Alas, the rules were made to protect the foundation, and they are good rules.  But for the other person in my life, it’s akin to raising someone else’s child since birth, with the biological parents still having all the say. 

So what are we to do with these feelings?  Sometimes our hands are just tied, and we have to look at the big picture.  Myke and I love each other, we bring each other joy.  Things may not always go exactly as planned, or be as accessible or spontaneous as we’d like, but we should feel lucky to have met each other and try to grow in other ways.

Right? 

I feel very unskilled in this area, as I’ve never encountered this before.  I don’t even know who to turn to for advice.  And my heart breaks as I watch my relationship suffer.

  These are some recent quotes on the Twitter reel that caught my attention:

Do you love relationships with endless discussions about negotiating boundaries?  Then polyamory may just be for you!

You know you’re poly when your disagreement over computers leads to a discussion about fighting techniques & compromises.

I’m going to play devil’s advocate for a (brief) moment.  I imagine a lot of monogamous people are getting tired of hearing what great communicators poly people are.  Open relationships DO require a ton of communication, but for any relationship to be successful, communication is essential.   Are poly relationships really more communicative than monogamous ones? 

I think the difference is, poly people have to be pre-emptively communicative.   We have all heard the typical question, “Do you think she’s pretty?  You can tell me, I won’t be mad.”  Against his better judgment, the partner is eventually fooled into a confession, whereas the stinger is immediately turned on him (“Well then, you might as well go fuck her!”).  After a while, the partner learns to just say no.

Most likely, a poly person wouldn’t hesitate to say, “hey, that girl is hot!” and have his partner agree, or at least form an unbiased opinion. 

I guess it’s a matter of honest communication about what’s going on in your head.  We all find people outside of our relationship attractive, whether we act on it or not.  The honesty non-monogamy provides is being able to admit that to our partner without it being taken personally.  If I think back to my monogamous relationships, insecurity was in charge of most conversations about other men - I looked at him suggestively.  I talked to my ex.  I have a male friend at work.  I was awfully flirty with that guy.  Aren’t I ENOUGH for you??   

Perhaps once we cut through all that defensiveness, it lets us focus on the real issues.  Jealousy still exists, feeling neglected still exists, all of the things monogamous couples experience still exist, but when we’re free to be truly honest with our partners, it makes navigating arguments so much easier, and we may therefore be “better” communicators. 

In other words, we start off with a clean slate.  Most of the work is already done, as our egos have already been put in their place.

This statue makes me blush.  It’s the background image on my computer, and at the end of the day when I’ve gone through dozens of windows and I’m shutting them all down, this is my final result.  It sends a shockwave through my heart every time, as though I’ve been caught in an intimate moment, or forgotten to close the blinds when the lights are all on.  The grip he has on her thigh, the strength in his hands as he pulls her closer, the feminine folds of her skin as she struggles against him brings me down to the primal level of my wants and I become weak.

This marble sculpture (marble, take a breath) portrays Pluto, god of the underworld, kidnapping Persephone and whisking her away to the depths of Hades.  She reaches for Heaven, cries for release.  We mortals know this feeling, but it is brought forth in the unparalleled  moment of ecstasy called Orgasm, that moment when our eyes do turn to heaven and we convene with the gods.  Orgasm is often referred to as La petite mort (the little death), and agony and ecstasy are often interchangeable. 

Pluto is tormented by his love for Persephone.  He takes her, quite literally, while she is gathering flowers.  Had they met under different circumstances, surely Bernini’s sculpture would only vary slightly, as the passion of longing and that of possession meet on very similar grounds.   He took her, placed his hands on her and owned her, a pleasure not restricted to Gods alone, as the power of love  is legendary in its conviction.

The power of this piece takes my breath away.

Starting this week, Let’s Eat Cake! is going to start hosting occasional guest bloggers.  The first is John Stark, whose blog We Sleep Together contains hilarious, touchingly honest and deliciously erotic stories about the adventures he and his wife share as they explore polyamory.  I’ve chosen this post to introduce John with, because it’s such a candid piece and goes straight to the heart of jealousy, fear and committment.  He put my own feelings into words better than I’ve ever been able to.  Also an amazing piece is Aftercare, where John processes and reacts to his wife coming home with fresh bruises from a spanking session with “Ted.”  Brilliant, really. So without further ado.  The following post was in response to a reader asking if John was upset about his wife getting a new boyfriend.  I think you will enjoy his response as much as I did.

I love it when people say, “You already have a boyfriend, leave some for the rest of us,” implying that by having multiple partners, poly people are selfishly stealing all the available people in the world.  Um, hello. . . we share.  That’s kind of the point.  It’s not like once we date or sleep with someone, they are locked in, and are suddenly unable to see the allure of other people.   

Plus, we can’t steal anyone.  It’s not like we’re so amazing, as soon as we set our sights on someone no one else stands a chance.  We’re just not that special.  If anything, being poly ruins our chances with people more than it wins us points.  Our relationship is too complicated, and a lot of people get scared off easily by situations they don’t understand.

This is similar to the accusation that polyamory is all about wanting to “have your cake and eat it too,” hence the name of my blog.  I don’t understand why we should be told to sit at the table with a delicious piece of cake in front of us and be forbidden to take a bite.   Whose dinner party is this, and why are they so restrictive? 

They use words like overindulgent and selfish.  How is loving someone a selfish act?  How is it overindulgent to recognize that fulfillment comes in many different forms?  In many ways, the world is starved for romance, passion and uninhibited lust, and these things should not be withheld and doled out sparingly like field rations .  These are unlimited resources.  They can be recreated over and over again, with nothing but the hint of a spark and a connection.

That is what I mean by “love is limitless.”  So are passion, desire, lust, honesty, self-awareness and all the other pursuits polyamorous people ”indulge” in. 

Polyamory is a bad word in America, and I can’t figure out why.  Most of us just want to live in peace with the other consenting adults who are important to us, without being judged as selfish, sex-driven hedonists with no respect for monogamy or the sanctity of marriage.  Yes, we have our cake, we eat it, and sometimes go back for seconds.  But we won’t eat your cake unless you offer it.