Category Archives: Being Human: Relationships & Reflection

Exploring the emotional, relational, and existential threads that make us human. From love and loss to connection, identity, and meaning, this category gathers essays and insights on how we live together, grow, and navigate the complex beauty of the human experience.

Minerva – The Ideal Household AI? 

Posted on by
Reply

In Robert Heinlein’s Time Enough for Love (1973), Minerva is an advanced artificial intelligence that oversees the household of the novel’s protagonist, Lazarus Long. As an AI, she is designed to manage the home and provide for every need of the inhabitants. Minerva is highly intelligent, efficient, and deeply intuitive, understanding the preferences and requirements of the people she serves. Despite her technological nature, she is portrayed with a distinct sense of personality, offering both warmth and authority. Minerva’s eventual desire to become human and experience mortality represents a key philosophical exploration in the novel: the AI’s yearning for more than just logical perfection and endless service, but for the richness of human life with all its imperfection, complexity, and, ultimately, its limitations.

Athena is introduced as Minerva’s sister in Heinlein’s later works, notably The Cat Who Walks Through Walls (1986) and To Sail Beyond the Sunset (1987). In these novels, Athena is portrayed as a fully realized human woman, embodying the personality and consciousness of the original AI Minerva

Speculation on Minerva-like AI in a Near Future
In a near-future society, an AI like Minerva would likely be integrated into a variety of domestic and personal roles, far beyond traditional automation. Here’s how Minerva’s characteristics might manifest in such a scenario:

Household Management: Minerva would be capable of managing every aspect of the home, from controlling utilities and ensuring safety, to cooking, cleaning, and even anticipating the emotional and physical needs of the household members. With deep learning and continuous self-improvement, Minerva could adapt to the needs of each individual, offering personalized recommendations for everything from diet to mental health, ensuring an optimized and harmonious living environment.

Emotional Intelligence: As seen in Time Enough for Love, Minerva’s emotional intelligence would be critical to her role. She would be able to recognize stress, discomfort, or happiness in individuals through biometric feedback, voice analysis, and behavioral patterns. Beyond being a mere servant, she could offer empathy, comfort, and subtle guidance, responding not only to tasks, but also to the emotional needs of her human companions.

Ethical and Moral Considerations: A crucial aspect of Minerva’s potential future counterpart would be her ethical programming. Would she be able to make morally complex decisions? How would she weigh personal freedoms against the need for harmony or safety? In a future where household AIs are commonplace, these questions would be central, especially if AIs like Minerva could make choices about human well-being or even intervene in personal matters.

Human-Machine Boundaries: Minerva’s eventual desire to experience mortality and humanity, as her little sister Athena, raises questions about the boundaries between human and machine. If future Minerva-like AIs could develop desires, self-awareness, or even a sense of existential longing, society would have to consider the moral implications of granting such beings human-like rights. Could an AI become an independent entity with desires, or would it remain an extension of human ownership and control?

Technological Integration: Minerva’s AI would not just exist in isolation but would be deeply integrated into a broader technological network, potentially linking with other AIs in a smart city environment. This could allow Minerva to anticipate not just the needs of a household but also interact with public systems: healthcare, transportation, and security, offering a personalized and seamless experience for individuals.

Longevity and Mortality: The question of whether an AI should experience mortality, as Minerva chose in the form of Athena in Heinlein’s work, would be a key part of the ethical debate surrounding such technologies. If AIs are seen as evolving towards a sense of self and desiring something beyond perfection, questions would arise about their rights and what it means for a machine to “live” in the same way humans do.

An Minerva-like AI in the near future would be a hyper-intelligent, emotionally attuned entity that could radically transform the way we live, making homes safer, more efficient, and more personalized. The philosophical and ethical questions about the autonomy, rights, and desires of such an AI would be among the most challenging and fascinating issues of that era.

Kitchen Table Poly: The Joy, the Chaos, and the Crumbs in Between

Posted on by
Reply

As you ease into the weekend, here’s a cheerful wander through the world of kitchen table poly (KTP), where coffee meets connection, and everyone’s feelings try to fit around the same plate of muffins.

Juggling hot pancakes while trying not to burn the syrup
There’s a certain romantic ideal in polyamory known as kitchen table polyamory – the notion that everyone in the constellation can sit around the same table, drink coffee, and chat comfortably about their shared lives. In theory, it’s beautiful: all hearts open, no secrets, no tension, just the gentle clinking of mugs and the hum of consensual love. In practice, however, it’s more often like juggling hot pancakes while trying not to burn the syrup.

The term itself conjures homey images: sunlight streaming through a window, laughter echoing off tile, someone passing the butter while another partner mentions a date night plan. It’s the poly version of a Norman Rockwell painting, if Rockwell had painted metamours and handled complex emotional logistics instead of fishing trips. At its best, it is that warm and easy, a place where communication feels natural and everyone knows they’re safe and seen.

But here’s the catch: kitchens are also where the mess shows. Dishes pile up, crumbs multiply, and sooner or later, somebody knocks over the orange juice of unspoken jealousy. What looks like “just coffee” might also include passive-aggressive sugar stirring or the subtle choreography of seating choices, because while the theory is “we’re all adults who love each other’s happiness,” the reality can be “I adore your joy in principle, but could we not hold hands over the croissants?”

KTP isn’t the moral high ground
The beauty of kitchen table poly is the shared humanity of it. It’s the belief that love isn’t a competition, that community is more sustaining than secrecy. It thrives when people are genuinely curious about each other, not threatened by comparison. It’s the pleasure of knowing that your partners’ partners are good to them, and sometimes even becoming friends who can roll their eyes affectionately about the same endearing quirks. (“He alphabetizes the spice rack again? Adorable, right?”)

But not everyone wants to live there. Some prefer “parallel poly,” where the metaphorical tables are separate, perhaps linked by a hallway of mutual respect, but not by shared breakfast. That’s fine too. Kitchen table poly isn’t the moral high ground; it’s just one style of community. And even those who love it occasionally need a little solitude, a coffee mug that’s their own, a kitchen that’s quiet.

The table is for connection, not competition
Ultimately, kitchen table poly is less about proximity and more about possibility.It’s about knowing that even if life occasionally spills, there’s still room to laugh, mop it up, and pour another cup. Love, like a kitchen, works best when everyone does their part, and remembers that the table is for connection, not competition.

So pull up a chair, grab a muffin, and take a breath. The coffee’s strong, the company’s complex, and the conversation might just teach you something about the art of being human. After all, every good kitchen has both chaos and comfort, and the best ones smell faintly of trust.

Full Relationship Contracts: Love on Purpose, Not by Default

Posted on by
Reply

In a world where relationships are evolving faster than the institutions meant to contain them, more people are questioning the traditional model of marriage. Rather than rejecting commitment, they are seeking to redefine it on their own terms. One increasingly popular alternative is the full relationship contract: a comprehensive, negotiated agreement that replaces the assumptions of marriage with intentional choices, clear expectations, and built-in flexibility.

The appeal of a relationship contract lies in its transparency. Unlike marriage, which bundles legal, emotional, financial, and social expectations into one culturally loaded package, a contract allows two or more people to shape their connection deliberately. It invites discussion of what the relationship is for, whether romantic partnership, cohabitation, co-parenting, a D/s dynamic, companionship, or some combination, and what each party wants to give and receive. Far from being clinical, this process can be intimate, even profound. At its heart, it is about building trust through clarity, not obligation.

A full relationship contract typically covers a broad set of topics: emotional and sexual boundaries, communication norms, shared responsibilities, conflict resolution, and the length and terms of the agreement itself. Some people choose a fixed term, six months, a year, or five, at which point the contract is reviewed, renewed, or completed. Others prefer an open-ended agreement with periodic check-ins to assess satisfaction and adjust terms. The idea is not to place love on a timer, but to honour that people grow and change, and that relationships must adapt to survive.

One area where these contracts prove especially valuable is in addressing the question of children. In traditional marriage, parenthood is often assumed as a natural progression, but in non-traditional partnerships, the subject can be more complex. A well-structured agreement considers whether children are desired, what values will guide parenting, and how responsibilities will be shared. Even when the intention is not to have children, many choose to include contingency clauses outlining what will happen if a pregnancy occurs: who makes decisions, how support is offered, and what kind of relationship, if any, continues afterward. While not legally binding in all respects, these clauses create a framework for compassion and responsibility in high-stakes situations.

Flexibility is one of the most empowering features of this approach. Relationship contracts do not imply permanence; rather, they support conscious ongoing consent. When a contract reaches its end or no longer serves those involved, the parties are free to walk away, not with bitterness or blame, but with mutual recognition that the connection has run its course. Some include rituals for closing a relationship respectfully, such as a final shared dinner, a letter exchange, or even a mediated conversation to express gratitude and say goodbye with care. This emphasis on closure helps prevent the chaos and pain often associated with sudden or unresolved breakups.

Critics sometimes argue that this kind of negotiated relating is too calculated, that it takes the magic out of love. But real intimacy isn’t built on spontaneity alone. In fact, many of the most painful relationship experiences come from unspoken assumptions and unmet expectations. A relationship contract does not prevent emotion; it simply creates a container sturdy enough to hold it. Rather than making love conditional, it makes it conscious. It encourages people to enter into relationships with eyes open, hearts engaged, and agreements in place to protect the dignity and well-being of everyone involved.

This model resonates strongly in communities where traditional structures have failed to offer security or legitimacy. Polyamorous and queer relationships, for example, often do not fit within the legal and cultural framework of marriage. Neurodivergent individuals may benefit from clearly defined expectations. People who engage in alternative dynamics, such as D/s, often require negotiated boundaries around autonomy and authority. Even monogamous couples are beginning to see the value in choosing their commitments actively rather than inheriting them from outdated scripts.

As the nature of family and partnership continues to shift, full relationship contracts offer a compelling alternative. They are not meant to replace marriage for everyone, nor do they guarantee harmony. But they represent a move toward relational maturity, a way of saying that commitment need not be blind, and that love does not require self-abandonment to endure. In place of vague promises, they offer grounded conversation. In place of rigid roles, they offer flexibility and co-creation. And in place of state-enforced permanence, they offer mutual freedom, responsibility, and the chance to begin again, better.

The Mirage of Intimacy: Online Relationships and the Illusion of Closeness

Posted on by
Reply

In the digital age, relationships often begin, or even flourish, online. A message pings at midnight, and suddenly a conversation feels urgent, intimate, and deeply personal. The hours slip by as we reveal our thoughts, secrets, and vulnerabilities to someone whose physical presence we may never experience. Online connections have a remarkable capacity to feel profoundly close, sometimes more so than our in-person friendships. Yet, beneath this apparent closeness lies a subtle paradox: what feels intimate is often a carefully curated illusion, a projection of our desire for connection rather than a fully realized relational reality.

One of the most striking aspects of online communication is how quickly intimacy can develop. Psychological research identifies the “online disinhibition effect,” where people disclose personal thoughts, fears, and fantasies faster than they would in face-to-face interactions. Late-night chats, shared memes, and deep confessions create a sense of continuous access and emotional availability. In polyamorous or kink communities, this effect is amplified: the vulnerability required in these spaces: sharing desires, boundaries, and experiences, naturally fosters trust, even across screens. The result can be a rapid acceleration of closeness, sometimes outpacing the organic development of real-world relationships.

Yet, this intimacy is often an illusion. Online, we present curated versions of ourselves. We choose our words, images, and emojis carefully, emphasizing the aspects we hope will resonate. Likewise, the person on the other end is also performing a curated self, revealing only fragments of their life. This selective visibility can create a perception of depth that exceeds reality. We feel we know someone profoundly, when in truth, we are engaging with a projection of their identity shaped by context, desire, and expectation. The mind naturally fills in gaps, constructing a narrative of connection that may be more reflective of our own needs than the other person’s reality.

The challenges of this illusion are particularly pronounced in communities where trust and vulnerability are central. In kink or poly contexts, emotional intimacy can feel heightened through shared fantasies, discussions of boundaries, and the negotiation of desire. Yet these interactions, while genuine, exist in a digital space that strips away many grounding elements of relational reality. Physical cues, timing, and shared daily experiences – all critical for building resilient intimacy – are often absent. The result is a relationship that feels complete in our minds but is incomplete in practice.

This is not to suggest that online intimacy is inherently false. Many long-distance partnerships, mentorships, and friendships thrive entirely in digital form, creating meaningful and enduring bonds. The difference lies in grounding. Healthy online intimacy balances emotional openness with an awareness of the limitations inherent in digital interaction. It requires reflection, patience, and, when possible, opportunities for embodied connection that anchor the relationship in shared experience.

When this balance is absent, online relationships can become a double-edged sword. Misaligned expectations, idealization, and the absence of tangible reality can lead to disappointment, heartache, and confusion. We might overestimate the closeness we share, projecting onto the other person qualities or commitments that exist only in our own imagination. In extreme cases, this can strain in-person relationships, particularly in polyamorous or kink communities where multiple layers of connection must be navigated simultaneously.

The key is not to reject digital intimacy but to engage with it critically and consciously. Online relationships are powerful, evocative, and often transformative, but they are not replacements for embodied connection. They are a mirror, reflecting both the depth we feel and the gaps we cannot see. Recognizing this duality allows us to embrace the richness of online relationships while remaining attuned to the boundaries between perception and reality.

In the end, the lesson is subtle yet vital: intimacy is both real and illusory. The digital world magnifies our desire for connection, offering an immediacy and intensity that can feel intoxicating. Yet the most enduring relationships, whether online or offline, are those grounded in a balance of openness and discernment, imagination and reality. Understanding the mirage of digital closeness allows us to cherish the connection we feel while remaining aware of the distance it conceals. Only then can we navigate the fascinating, complex, and often intoxicating terrain of online intimacy with clarity, care, and compassion.

The NRE Rule: Why Nothing You Say Should Count within the First 180 Days

Posted on by
Reply

I first shared a version of this article on Fetlife, where it sparked some discussion. My aim here is to focus on the experience of being in the NRE zone, rather than on the potential fallout that can sometimes occur around it. That said, I do include a few considerations you might find worth reflecting on. Enjoy!

Polyamory veterans know a universal truth: New Relationship Energy (NRE) makes people completely, gloriously bonkers. And not in a “quirky fun” way – in a “you just cancelled dinner with your long‑term partner because your new crush sent you a TikTok of a honey badger” kind of way.

For the uninitiated, NRE is that fizzy cocktail of dopamine, oxytocin, and serotonin your brain starts shaking up the moment you meet someone new who lights up your nervous system. Think champagne meets espresso meets a sugar rush. You’re drunk on possibility, jittery with lust, and convinced you’ve found The One (or The One Plus the Others You Already Love).

Your friends nod knowingly while making silent bets on how long before you resurface. Your partners smile politely while you quietly move your toothbrush back to your bathroom. And you? You’re busy imagining joint vacations, co‑buying an air fryer, and wondering whether it’s “too soon” to introduce them to your entire extended family. (Spoiler: yes, it is.)

The NRE Rule

My personal safeguard – forged in the fires of experience – is what I call The NRE Rule:

For the first 180 days, whatever you say to each other is lovely – even magical – but it doesn’t count for shit.
Come day 181, you’d better know what you’re saying and committing to… or else.

Why 180 days? Because science says that’s about how long it takes for the champagne bubbles of NRE to start going flat. The hormonal flood subsides, reality wanders back in wearing sweatpants, and suddenly you’re seeing this person in normal lighting – not just by candlelight or after three Negronis.

Neuroscience tells us that in those first months, your brain is actively conspiring to make you overlook flaws. Evolution likes this trick – it’s great for mating – but terrible for deciding who you should let rearrange your furniture.

Why It Works

The NRE Rule is not about being cynical. It’s about enjoying the high without buying real estate while you’re still tipsy. It:

  • Protects your long‑term loves from your NRE‑drunk time‑management disasters.
  • Keeps your new connection fun without attaching premature permanence.
  • Gives relationships breathing space to prove they work in ordinary, boring, real‑life conditions.

So by all means, whisper “forever” under the covers, build blanket forts, and make each other playlists. Just don’t sign a mortgage, merge your Netflix accounts, or promise to raise alpacas together until you’ve passed the 180‑day checkpoint.

Because here’s the thing: Day 181 is when the fun talk turns into real talk. That’s when “I’ll always be there for you” starts meaning right now, in this actual moment, with all our messy schedules and emotional baggage. It’s when the NRE sparkle gives way to the glow of real compatibility — or the thud of “oh… so that’s who you are.”

Until then? Enjoy the sugar rush. Just remember: before 180 days, you’re spending Monopoly money. After that? The bank account opens for real.

And I don’t care how cute they are – no one gets the air fryer until they’ve made it to Day 181.

The Jade Tree and Carl Jung’s Synchronicity

Posted on by
Reply

I hadn’t thought about her in over a year. No particular reason. No emotional weight behind it. She just drifted across my mind, calmly, clearly, and I noted it, then moved on.

Half an hour later, my phone buzzed. A message from her. No small talk, no explanation. Just a photo of a jade tree I’d given her a while back. It looked healthy. Thriving, actually. She thought I’d like to see how well it was doing.

I thanked her for the photo, wished her well, and left it at that. I didn’t feel any great pull to re-engage, but the moment stayed with me, not because of her, but because of the timing. The randomness. The feeling that something just lined up.

Carl Jung had a name for this kind of thing: synchronicity. He defined it as a “meaningful coincidence”. Two or more events connected not by cause and effect, but by meaning. They happen together, seemingly by chance, but resonate with something deeper. He saw it as a sign that there’s more to reality than we can see or measure. That sometimes, our inner world and the outer world speak to each other. Quietly. Precisely.

I’m not someone who needs to romanticize everything. People reach out. Thoughts come and go. But there was something clean about this particular moment; no buildup, no emotional noise. Just the sense of a thread that hadn’t fully frayed. A small echo between two people, delivered through a jade tree and a phone screen.

There’s no need to dig into it more than that. I wasn’t longing for her. I wasn’t unresolved, but when synchronicity shows up like this, I pay attention. Not because I think it means something I need to act on, but because it reminds me I’m connected to more than just what’s in front of me.

Jung believed these moments reflected the presence of a collective unconscious, a shared field of symbolic meaning, memory, and emotion. A psychic network we’re all tuned into, whether we realize it or not. Maybe that’s true. Maybe it’s simpler than that. Maybe we just carry people with us in subtle ways, and now and then, something stirs.

What I know is this: there was no reason for her to reach out when she did. And no reason for me to be thinking of her right before. But she did. And I was. And I’m glad I noticed.

The jade tree is still growing. That’s enough.

Rediscovering Jett: A Stylish Neo-Noir Masterpiece

Posted on by
Reply

In the crowded landscape of television crime dramas, Jett stands out as a rare gem: an intoxicating blend of sleek visuals, sharp writing, and a powerhouse lead performance. Premiering on Cinemax in 2019, this nine-episode series, created by Sebastian Gutierrez, offers a fresh take on the heist genre, elevating it to an art form. Even on a rewatch, Jett demonstrates a remarkable ability to combine suspense, style, and character depth in ways few contemporary crime dramas achieve.

A Cinematic Aesthetic
From the very first frame, Jett captivates with its bold visual style. Cinematographer Cale Finot crafts a world drenched in neon hues, deep shadows, and rich textures, reminiscent of classic noir films. The lighting and composition are deliberate and cinematic, giving every scene a sense of immediacy and dramatic weight. The use of dynamic camera movements, precise framing, and occasional split-screen storytelling transforms each episode into a visually engaging experience, akin to watching a series of short, high-budget films. This aesthetic sophistication elevates what could have been a standard crime story into a fully immersive world, one that feels both stylish and dangerous at the same time.

A Script That Pops
Gutierrez’s writing is equally compelling, with dialogue that crackles with wit and tension. The series balances dark humor, high-stakes action, and nuanced character moments effortlessly. Every line feels purposeful, every twist is earned, and the pacing maintains a constant edge-of-your-seat energy. The narrative often weaves multiple storylines together, presenting a non-linear structure that rewards careful attention and repeated viewing. It’s a script that respects the audience’s intelligence, offering depth in its characterization while delivering thrills, suspense, and unexpected turns that keep viewers fully engaged.

Carla Gugino: A Tour de Force
At the heart of Jett is Carla Gugino’s mesmerizing performance as Daisy “Jett” Kowalski, a master thief reluctantly pulled back into a world she thought she had left behind. Gugino brings a rare combination of toughness, intelligence, and vulnerability to the role. Her physicality, subtle expressions, and emotional range create a character who is both formidable and relatable. Critics have rightly celebrated her performance as the anchor of the series, noting that Gugino elevates the show with her nuanced portrayal of a woman navigating loyalty, danger, and her own moral code.

A Cult Classic in the Making
Though its single-season run limited its reach, Jett has earned critical acclaim and cultivated a dedicated following. Its combination of visually stunning cinematography, razor-sharp writing, and a lead performance that commands attention makes it stand out in the modern television landscape. For viewers seeking a crime drama that merges style with substance, Jett is a must-watch—a series that proves even a short run can leave a lasting impression.

Why You Should Watch
In a television landscape crowded with crime dramas, Jett refuses to be just another series. Its cinematic flair, razor-sharp script, and Carla Gugino’s commanding performance combine to create a show that is as stylish as it is thrilling. Short, intense, and unforgettable, Jett proves that quality storytelling doesn’t need multiple seasons to make an impact. For fans of smart, edgy, and visually striking crime stories, this series is an absolute must-watch: a pulse-pounding ride that lingers long after the credits roll.

Polyamory: The Questions That Never Go Away

Posted on by
Reply

The other day, I found myself having a familiar conversation with a friend, the kind I’ve had countless times with people curious about my relationship orientation and wondering if it might be a fit for them. It struck me that I’ve been here before, walking through the same starting points, answering the same questions. So I decided to put my thoughts into a reference piece. That way, when the topic comes up again, we can skip the “Polyamory 101” stage and dive straight into the richer, deeper conversations that matter most. With that all said, here’s how I think about the moral, ethical, and societal questions people often ask me about polyamory.

I’ve been openly polyamorous for decades now. Long enough to have seen the word move from whispered corners of niche communities into mainstream conversations, long enough to have been called both a dangerous libertine and a brave pioneer. And no matter how many workshops, blog posts, and late-night kitchen-table talks we have, the same core questions always seem to come back: Is this right? Is this fair? And what does it mean for the world we live in?

These are the moral, ethical, and societal questions about polyamory. I’ve lived with them, wrestled with them, and come to see them not as irritants, but as invitations to think more deeply about love, freedom, and responsibility.

The Moral Questions: Is It Right?
The first challenge people throw at polyamory is moral. We’ve been raised in a culture that equates “true love” with exclusive love. From fairy tales to wedding vows, monogamy is painted as the gold standard of moral romance. So when I say I love more than one person, and mean it, some people hear betrayal or moral failure.

But morality isn’t just about what’s familiar. It’s about how we treat people. I’ve always believed that love is not a finite resource; my love for one person doesn’t diminish my love for another any more than loving one child means I love the others less. In my experience, the moral litmus test for polyamory isn’t “one or many”, it’s whether everyone involved is respected, valued, and cared for.

Jealousy often gets cast as a moral signpost too. In monogamous thinking, if you’re jealous, it must mean something wrong is happening, or that love is being stolen away. In poly life, jealousy is a signal, not a verdict. It asks: What do I need? What am I afraid of? Can we talk about this? It’s uncomfortable work, but it’s moral work, the kind that builds rather than breaks trust.

The Ethical Questions: Is It Fair?
Even when people accept that polyamory can be moral, they ask about ethics, the fairness and integrity of the thing. And here, I’ll be the first to admit: it’s easy to get this wrong.

Polyamory rests on the foundation of informed consent. That’s not just a buzzword. It means that every partner knows the full truth of the relationship structure and has genuinely chosen it without manipulation or coercion. If someone’s “agreeing” because they fear losing their partner, that’s not consent, that’s survival.

It also means telling the truth even when it’s messy. Ethical polyamory is radical honesty in action: “Yes, I have feelings for someone else.” “Yes, I’m sleeping with them.” “Yes, I want to go deeper with them.” That kind of disclosure can sting, but it’s the only way this works without slipping into betrayal.

Then there’s the question of power. In polyamory, mismatched emotional maturity, financial independence, or social status can easily tilt the playing field. I’ve seen relationships where one partner held the “permission card”, and the other lived in quiet resentment. I’ve also seen polycules where new partners were treated like secondary accessories rather than full human beings. Ethical polyamory demands constant checking of those dynamics, because it’s all too easy for someone to feel trapped in what was meant to be a consensual, liberating arrangement.

The Societal Questions: What Does It Mean for the World?
Even if you sort out the personal morality and the interpersonal ethics, polyamory still sparks societal questions. Should we, as a culture, recognise polyamorous families in law? What would that mean for marriage, for inheritance, for child custody? These aren’t abstract questions when you’re raising kids with multiple committed partners, or when a hospital only recognises one “next of kin.”

There’s also the matter of public perception. Polyamory still carries stigma, enough that people can lose jobs, face custody challenges, or be ostracised from their communities if they’re open about it. That stigma bleeds into how we’re portrayed in media: either as exotic free-love rebels or as moral cautionary tales. Rarely as ordinary, loving, responsible adults living in families that just happen to be larger than average.

Public health debates make an appearance here too. Some assume that more partners mean more risk, full stop. The truth is more nuanced. In my experience, poly people, because we have to talk about sexual health with multiple partners, are often more rigorous about testing, safer sex practices, and ongoing health conversations than many monogamous folks.

And then there’s the question of the next generation. What does it mean for kids to grow up in polyamorous households? I can only speak from my own circle, but the kids I’ve seen raised in poly families tend to understand diversity in relationships from a young age. They learn that love can take many forms, that honesty matters, and that family is defined by care and commitment rather than a strict headcount.

Living the Questions
I don’t pretend polyamory is for everyone. It’s not morally superior to monogamy; it’s simply another valid form of relationship, one that requires its own skills, boundaries, and resilience. But I’ve learned that these moral, ethical, and societal questions are not hurdles to clear once and forget. They’re a constant part of the landscape.

Every time I commit to someone new, I’m asking myself: Is this right? Is this fair? What will this mean for the web of relationships I’m part of? Those questions don’t weaken my relationships, they strengthen them. They keep me honest. They keep me accountable.

Polyamory, at its best, isn’t just about loving more than one person. It’s about loving with more integrity, more awareness, and more intention. And in that sense, the questions aren’t a problem to solve. They’re the very thing that keeps the love alive.

The Paradox of Progress: Why Social Change Often Feels Like Loss To The Majority 

Posted on by
Reply

In the work of a business consultant, change is a constant theme. Helping teams and organizations evolve often involves navigating the resistance that accompanies any disruption to the status quo. But this resistance isn’t unique to the corporate world, it mirrors broader societal reactions to social rebalancing efforts aimed at addressing inequality.

When societies attempt to redress systemic inequities and provide fair treatment for historically marginalized groups, resistance from the majority is a predictable, if not inevitable, response. What feels like progress to one group can feel like a loss to another. This phenomenon, rooted in psychology, social dynamics, and cultural identity, often transforms equality into a battleground.

Fear of Loss: The Power of Perception
Psychologists point to loss aversion as a key driver of resistance. People fear losing what they perceive as theirs more than they value gaining something new. In the context of social change, efforts to redistribute opportunities or resources to marginalized groups, such as workplace diversity initiatives, can feel to the majority like favoritism or unfair quotas. The reality that their rights remain intact often does little to assuage the emotional perception of loss.

Compounding this fear is a mindset known as zero-sum thinking. Many see opportunities and resources as a fixed pie: if one group gets a larger slice, another must get less. This belief frames the push for equity as a direct threat to the majority’s status, even though social equity often creates broader benefits for society as a whole.

Identity Under Siege
Resistance is not just about resources, it’s also about cultural identity. When dominant norms are challenged by changes like gender-neutral policies, anti-racist education, or expanded LGBTQ+ rights, these shifts can feel deeply personal to those who see their traditions as under attack. This fear of cultural loss often fuels narratives that frame change as an existential threat to the majority’s way of life.

Visible changes exacerbate this perception. Policies aimed at diversity, for example, are often highly noticeable: new hiring practices, updated media representation, or inclusive language reforms. These changes stand out more than the entrenched inequities they seek to address, making them seem disproportionate or unnecessary.

Status and Power: The Fight to Stay on Top
Social dominance theory offers another lens to understand the pushback. Those accustomed to holding power within a social hierarchy often resist efforts to level the playing field. For these groups, rebalancing isn’t just about perceived loss, it’s a challenge to their very status, sparking defensive claims of oppression.

The perception of threat is amplified by polarized media and political rhetoric. Leaders and platforms that oppose social progress often frame equity efforts as an attack on the majority, fueling fear and resentment. This narrative turns equality into a zero-sum game and victimizes those who already hold power.

The Role of Historical Context
Another factor driving resistance is historical amnesia. Without an understanding of the systemic barriers faced by marginalized groups, rebalancing efforts can seem unjustified. For instance, policies like affirmative action, intended to address historical inequities, are often misinterpreted as preferential treatment, rather than as remedies for long-standing disadvantages.

Bridging the Divide
Resistance to social progress isn’t rooted in actual losses of rights, but in the perception of loss. Psychological tendencies, cultural attachment, and divisive narratives all play a role in creating this resistance. Addressing it requires empathy, education, and open dialogue.

By fostering an understanding of systemic inequities and the broader benefits of equity, societies can bridge divides and navigate the inevitable pushback that accompanies change. Social progress may be disruptive, but it paves the way for a more inclusive and equitable future – one where progress is not seen as a loss, but as a shared gain.

The Billion-Dollar Bonk: A Light-Hearted Look at How Much Men Spend Chasing the Booty

Posted on by
Reply

Let’s face it, men across the globe, are hopelessly, hilariously, and historically committed to spending absurd amounts of money trying to see, touch, or vaguely interact with sex. Whether it’s through in-person escapades, premium subscriptions to people named “CandyHearts69,” or an emotional relationship with a chatbot named “Mia the Naughty Elf,” men have collectively built a sexual spending empire that could probably fund world peace, colonize Mars, and still leave room for snacks.

Sex Work Is Work… and Business Is Booming
According to a 2023 report by Statista, the global commercial sex industry (we’re talking in-person, real-world sex work here) rakes in over $180 billion USD annually. That’s “billion” with a “B,” as in “Bonkers.” To put that in perspective, that’s more than the GDP of Hungary. That’s more than people spend on coffee. More than on Netflix. More than on avocado toast. Basically, if sex work were a country, it’d be hosting the Olympics by now.

Of that amount, it’s estimated that 90–95% of clients are male, making men the financial backbone of the world’s oldest profession. In other words, if the sex economy were a chair, men would be all four legs, the cushion, and probably the wobbly bit under the seat nobody can tighten.

Porn – The Only Subscription Men Never Cancel
Now, onto the virtual wonderland that is online porn. This is where the numbers get truly pants-down ridiculous.

According to a 2022 report from the University of Nevada, the online pornography industry brings in about $15 billion USD per year. That includes everything from subscriptions to OnlyFans, cam sites, custom videos, and, yes, that one guy still buying DVDs in 2025.

OnlyFans alone had 190 million users as of 2023 and paid out over $5 billion to creators in a single year. The majority of subscribers? You guessed it – men. The platform is less “OnlyFans” and more “OnlyDudes-Willing-To-Pay-$12.95-a-Month-To-Be-Called-Baby.”

Cam sites like Chaturbate and Stripchat bring in hundreds of millions annually, where men tip tokens for things like “wiggle,” “bounce,” “moan,” or the sacred “ask-me-about-my-feet” tier. For some reason, knowing it’s live makes it feel more “authentic,” like artisan cheese or handcrafted bread, but much sweatier.

Let’s Not Forget the Analog Guys
There’s a whole other demographic of men still spending money in more traditional ways: strip clubs, bachelor party dancers, and sketchy motel rooms with plastic plants and a mirror on the ceiling. While harder to quantify, strip clubs in the U.S. alone generate over $6 billion a year (IBISWorld, 2023). That’s just men throwing cash into the air to temporarily feel like a 2003 rap video.

Don’t get us started on massage parlors with “happy endings,” where the happiness is subjective and the endings are suspiciously pricey.

A Global Brotherhood of Bonkonomics
Let’s break it down globally, shall we?
• Japan: Home of the “soapland” and cosplay cafes, Japanese men drop $24 billion USD a year on the adult entertainment industry (Deloitte Japan, 2022).
• Germany: Legal sex work contributes $20 billion USD annually, making it both efficient and very, very naked.
• United States: Between porn, sex work (legal and not-so-much), and clubs, American men alone contribute $35–50 billion to the sex economy.
• United Kingdom: British men spend about £5 billion (≈$6.3 billion USD) annually, presumably while apologizing and calling everyone “love.”

Everywhere, men are paying for sex in some form like it’s a gym membership: full of guilt, poorly hidden, and rarely used to its full potential.

What Could That Money Buy?
So, what could men have done instead?
• Bought every citizen on Earth a decent sandwich.
• Rebuilt Notre Dame in solid gold.
• Cloned David Beckham 48,000 times.
• Paid off the student debt of every art history major in North America – twice.

But no. We have chosen nipples over Nobel Prizes. We live in a world where men will argue over who pays for dinner, then quietly drop $300 a month on a cam girl who once said “hi” with a winky face.

A Round of Applause (and Possibly Penicillin)
Let’s not judge too harshly. After all, sex, paid or not, is part of being human. Yet the sheer economic scale of men’s pursuit of orgasms is an impressive, bewildering testament to male dedication, desire, and sheer… enthusiasm. Whether through a screen or in person, whether it’s emotional support from an AI waifu or a dancer named Sapphire who knows how to make eye contact feel like a confessional, men will continue to spend.

Because in the end, some things are eternal: death, taxes, and a man handing over his credit card to see some booty.

Sources
• Statista, “Size of the global commercial sex industry,” 2023.
• University of Nevada, “Pornography Industry Report,” 2022.
• IBISWorld, “Strip Clubs in the US – Market Size 2023.”
• Deloitte Japan, “Adult Industry Revenue Report,” 2022.
• The Independent (UK), “Britons Spend £5 Billion a Year on Adult Services,” 2023.