One of the things I've been realizing over the last year, something that's shaken me up quite a bit, has been the way my nominally normal if somewhat libidinous upbringing was overlaid with wide, thick layer of third-hand, second-hand, and sometimes, in retrospect, first-hand abusive culture.*

Because I grew up in the extremely disrupted culture of the 1970s with it's hippie and sexual revolution rejection of unquestionably socially repressive, conservative barriers it's taken me a very long time to realize that thrown into that mix was indoctrinated... and in retrospect sometimes actively groomed rejection of boundaries.

I suspect that of my generation I am not alone.

For this reason I've really got a soft spot for recovering fundamentalist-cult survivor Elisabeth Esther, who today shared a wonderful list. Check it out. If you find it recognizable share it with your friends and loved ones. (I've numbered the list so I can refer to specific items in the rest of my post.)

I had a total epiphany moment when I read “Signs of Unhealthy Boundaries” on page 171 of Take Back Your Life. Here is an abbreviated list:

1. Telling all
2. Being sexual for others, not yourself
3. Being nonsexual for others, not yourself
4. Going against personal values or rights in order to please others
5. Not noticing or disregarding when someone else displays inappropriate boundaries
6. Not noticing or disregarding when someone invades your boundaries
7. Giving as much as you can for the sake of giving
8. Taking as much as you can for the sake of getting
9. Letting others define you
10. Letting others describe your reality
11. Believing others can anticipate your needs
12. Believing you must anticipate others’ needs
13. Practicing self-abuse (cutting yourself)
14. Being deprived of food or sleep
15. Being unable to separate your needs from those of others

It was pretty eye-opening for me to realize I could check off almost all of these signs.

Source: Elisabeth Esther

I've been there for a lot of that too. Sometimes even when I thought I wasn't! Fairly often I'd even impose some of those things on myself. (This being classic sign of what the 12-step people call co-dependence: imposing on yourself conditions you only believe to be required to be with someone else, for instance.)

For instance tolerating anger or even violence from an early partner on the assumption that a) she needed to express herself, b) I could "take it," and c) love requires "give and take" (itself of course a perfectly true thing) that I turned into "if I couldn't 'take it' I wasn't cut out to be in a relationship in the first place." Call that fallout from items #7, 9, 10, 12, and 15.

For instance the older youth "leader" who in "rap sessions" would make the perfectly valid point that most people are at least a little bisexual... while regularly "demonstrating" his point with egregiously inappropriate touching of young men in the group and often leading to "private sessions" with them to help them "work out their inhibitions." And to the extent the rest of us wondered if it was ok we were all desperately afraid of appearing too "uncool" or "sexually hung up" to mention it. See items #4, 5, and 6, above, topping that chart with a bullet. And see, worse, that coming away of those sessions we tended to question only the degree of the leader's behavior, believing "it's ok to do that, you just shouldn't go so far." Maybe with a little bit of #2 and/or #3 depending on whether you felt you could or couldn't be "cool" and participate in what pop culture was referring to at the time as "bisexual chic."

Others were imposed or assumed by others.

Throw in turmoil and shame if a woman wanted to fellate her partner (let alone if he asked her to), or if in those pre-g-spot days she preferred penetration to clitoral stimulation, or if a man wasn't "respectful" during sex, a.k.a. was anything but slow and basically worshipful, or if a woman (perhaps impatient with the neo-victorian pace) wanted to be active, or... or... or... etc. #6 and/or 7, numbers 12 and 11, numbers 2 and 6 and 15, and pretty much all the rest except maybe #13 and 14 (with maybe a mashup of choosing to "altering your reality" on your own by depriving yourself of sleep while staying up sometimes for days to travel or "rap" with each other.

And, for instance, the overwhelming sense that since sex should be "natural" you really shouldn't check in with each other during it, not to see if this felt good ("but the Joy of Sex said it should work!"), not to see if that was what was actually wanted since we were all supposed to be able to read each other's "vibe." Not really having any boundaries about drug or alcohol intoxication. And when it came to young men and boys, while there was (mostly homophobia-driven) understanding that they could say no to men nobody could even comprehend that it was even possible that a boy wouldn't be "ready" if a woman came on to him. (In a most unfortunate, deeply misunderstood, but widely repeated phrases from the era I think it was Susan Brownmiller who said men were so incapable of self-control sexually they would "even" have sex with women who were dead!)

And eh, more numbers in there somewhere.

Sigh. Yes, it was the 1970s. And almost everything about the era that wasn't bitterly tense was almost heedlessly nihilistic. And they really were trying to break down the giant zit of Western Civilization that had come to a (eww) head in the Mad Men era of the 1950s and 1960s. And mostly people were making it up as they went along. And everyone had to make their mistakes while they learned from them.

But here's the thing, and how it relates to Esther's post:

Unlike Elizabeth who escaped from her 1950s-holdover cult, a lot of my peers were more like 2nd-generation cult survivor. My parents were both raised very strictly but I was exposed to their parent's church cultures only through early elementary school.

But I've got to say that being the children of escapees had its own perils. In my own generation, which coincided with the hippies and the nominal sexual revolution, there's a not-even-unnatural possibility of mistaking rejection of oppressive barriers with maintenance of healthy boundaries. And wow am i learning -- sometimes after way too many decades -- what a huge difference there is between the two!

I'm going to order her cult-survivors book, Take Back Your Life. Using her Amazon link instead of mine. The 1970s, from its Viet Nam-era lyrics like "If you can't be with the one you love (honey) love the one your with" to the catastrophically sexually unsafe anonymity of New York and Bay Area bath house culture, to the hellishly triggered first wave of 2nd Wave feminists to their naked-woman-in-a-meat-grinder Hustler-cover antagonists in porn, amounted to a cult of its own. Even if it was only a rebound one after the preceding cult of the 1950s. But I get the impression we could learn a lot from that too.

* Footnote: I don't want to leave the impression I'm now dour or sour on what's become of sexuality after the 1970s. Or at least since the 1980s. Nor do I feel a need to recant much of anything I've said on this blog, although I think some my earlier posts show strong overtones of those unrecognized unhealthy boundaries. It definitely what I've learned or advocated is itself wrong.

Instead I think the way most of my writing stands up well indicates the problem I'm trying to illustrate here. The sexual ideals people were working on were just really different from the often toxically dysfunctional social context I and a lot of other suburban and exurban children of the Silent Majority generation were exposed to. To consider a (only slightly) less volatile example from current events, it's more like the case where you might hear mild advice like "well, it's a good idea for people in remote areas to be able to protect themselves." Only where for most people that just means have a dog, a baseball bat, or (as Joe Biden suggests) a shotgun, for the people you grew up around it meant machine guns, bunkers, explosives, bullet proof clothes and cars, the occasional confederate and nazi flags or white hoods, etc. The basic ideas can make sense even if the implementation and local influences are unhealthy in the extreme. Or look at Elizabeth Esther's example: it can be a good thing to be of religious faith even though it turns out you grew up in an almost insanely violent, repressive, terrified-and-terrifying cult.

Well, same sort of deal with the world of gender, relationships, tolerance, boundaries, and sex in the 1970s. All things considered now I think it might be nice to try on being a survivor. Because wowzie!

Anna Karenina - Dance with me by teasertrailer. I wish I could have found a better clip. Forgive the opening commercial --fl.

Loved the "waltz" scene with all my heart.  It was evidently absolutely fabricated by the choreographer, Sidi Larbi Cherkaoui -- neither Russians nor anyone else in the 1870s (or any other time) engaged in such fluidly graceful ballet of the hands -- but it was amazing to watch.

Actually, the choreography was the best part of the show.  No, it wasn't terriffically faithful to Tolstoy's text but then a ballet based on the novel wouldn't have either, and I doubt many would have objected to that.

Actually I think the worst part of the movie was... it was still faithful toTolystoy's text!  Geez what a creep!  By all accounts it was horrible enough being a part of his real life, particularly if you were female.  To be a character in his novel would leave one completely at his mercy!

In one of her best known works, Intercourse , Andrea Dworkin dwells on Tolstoy at length.  The guy was a complete asshole to his wife -- nearly killing her with repeated pregnancies while also repeatedly excoriating her for "forcing" him to backslide into sexuality despite his public yearning for pious celibacy and male chastity.  (Her diaries tell a story different enough that even if you average the competing claims he's... still an asshole.)

Early in the story Tolstoy has the title character, Anna, travel to Moscow to persuade her brother's wife to forgive him for his affair with their nanny.

The brother, Stiva, is presented as an affable, emotionally content, and ultimately simple man.  His take on his affair? (emphasis mine)

And then he suddenly remembered how and why he had been sleeping, not in his wife's chamber, but in the library; the smile vanished from his face and he frowned.

"Akh! Akh! Akh! Akh!" he groaned, as he recollected everything that had occurred. And before his mind arose once more all the details of the quarrel with his wife, all the hopelessness of his situation, and most lamentable of all, his own fault.

"No! She will not and she cannot forgive me. And what is the worst of it, 't was my own fault — my own fault, and yet I am not to blame. In that lies all the tragedy of it," he said to himself.

Clearly not his problem -- he was tempted, end of story.  His own fault yet he was not to blame.

Tolstoy wrote the sister-in-law, Dolly, as a saintly but tormented soul.  An epitome.  An ideal madonna.  Anna, frightened by this woman's determination to let her own virtue overcome (cough*patriarchal*cough) duty to her husband, manipulates her by suggesting first that she's not there to condone Stiva or to make excuses for him.  Instead, after letting her vent a bit, Anna turns the tables on Dolly's virtue, saying only she could have enough love to forgive him.

A few pages later Anna, herself married, falls in with a wealthy, noble cavalry officer. And despite urging it on Dolly she herself, lacking the ability to maternally submerge herself in her husband's welfare, generally makes everyone's lives miserable before jumping under a train.

Aah, but the dancing in that movie, choreographed to perfection with the music, was supernal.

So the question over at Em & Lo's "Your Call" this week is "How Can a Woman Enjoy Lots of Sex Without Shame?" Specifically:

How does one go about feeling better about a very sexual personality? I realize I’m human and I accept sex and all that comes with it with open arms. However, our society does not. Obviously I’m not saying I sleep with the masses, but I do enjoy sex and I don’t feel I should have to hide that without being labeled “whore.”

Source: Today on EMandLO.com

I’m going to be a little contrarian here (especially for me) and say rather than be completely open about her sex life she might approach it the way a lot of wealthy people approach conversations about their money: proudly, without embarrassment, but also quietly.

If it comes up in conversation consider being non-defensive but indirect: “I’m just lucky to meet such wonderful people.” “Well, it’s not as big a deal as people say it is.” “I’m sorry, I’ll be busy next weekend.”

You’ll never please everybody and some people are going to be in a snit no matter how one frames it, but for lot of people the resistance lies somewhere their own obstacles and “must be nice” envy. Which is how most people also feel about other people’s financial good fortune. And based on the advice most often given to those with financial fortune, downplaying (without lying or denying) is probably the best way increase comfort levels all around.

---

So I think this approach appeals to me in part because it makes an active sex life normal and unremarkable when there's overwhelming to make it extraordinary and noteworthy. Think about it like other normal and unremarkable things people do a lot of, like canning, golf, contra-dancing, couponing, scrap-booking, travel, and so on. On Monday mornings are you particularly interested in hearing someone else going on and on and on about their particular extracurricular activities?

Chances are that unless you share the same hobby you're going to be somewhere between jealous and bored stiff by a colleague going on and on and on and on about the rave they went to, their hang gliding workshops, their book club gossip, and so on. For all the slavering lather on magazine covers, cable TV programming, and, yes, blog posts, our sex lives just aren't that different from bass fishing or suduko tournaments: fascinating to us because... well... we're fascinated by it, but not really that fascinating to anyone else.

---

Another point along these lines: People are generally quietly tolerant of things like a big appetite for money, sex, or travel, front-row season tickets, or (who knew) 1915 Cracker Jack baseball card collecting they don't like the feeling of having it rubbed in their faces.

---

Final, most important figleaf-approved point: People have a surprisingly strong tendency to project our own disapprovals on others, with the result that, say, we may assume others disapproval is about the amount of sex we're having when instead a) they don't actually care one way or another and we mistake their indifference for disapproval, b) we mistake their wistfulness or envy for disdain, or c) they, again, we mistake their disapproval for getting their nose rubbed in it with disapproval of your sex life. Oh, or d) they actually don't much care for you but that's not why! One way or another we should be careful not to confuse how we think people "probably" feel for how they actually feel unless they tell us directly that, no, that really is what's bugging them.

It's bad enough when assholes in predictable, far-away-from-me places like Indiana, Missouri, and lifelong-government-beneficiary-and-Ayn-Rand-fan, but I always expect better from even the most conservative reaches of Washington State.  Silly me.  Evan McMorris-Santoro has the scoop.

John Koster, Republican nominee in Washington’s First Congressional District, was captured on tape over the weekend explaining why he is opposed to abortion in the case of incest and rape. Incest he said, was “so rare.” Then he turned to rape.

“On the rape thing, it’s like, how does putting more violence onto a woman’s body and taking the life of an innocent child that’s the consequence of this crime, how does that make it better?” Koster said. “You know what I mean?”

Source: TalkingPointsMemo

Koster's opponent, Democratic candidate Suzan DelBene, wasn't my first choice for the nearby Congressional District 1.  I supported and would have preferred Darcy Burner. 

But!

So a little while ago I donated to the DelBene's campaign.  If you feel the same way  you can donate to DelBene too.

To be fair, in the unlikely event it had been DelBene who'd said something so egregiously, viciously thuggish I'd have sent money to Koster.  But of course she didn't say anything nearly so ugly.  Instead he inexcusably did.