Emerald's Blog, page 3

Slixa Essay Contest on FOSTA/SESTA

Greetings! I’m late to the game on this (the deadline’s only a few days away!), but I just found out that Slixa.com is holding an essay contest for former and current adult service providers on the effects of FOSTA/SESTA’s passage. They’re set to award a total of $10,000 in prizes, with the winner receiving $2,500 and getting to choose the sex-work-related charitable beneficiary of a matching $2,500.

Here is the press release about the contest, and you can find the contest entry form here—where you may also read a bit about the panel of three awesome judges who will be choosing the winners (as well as questions/writing prompts for potential entrants seeking a little guidance).

The submission is January 14 (midnight Eastern Standard Time), so time is of the essence! I have seen much striking writing online about the impact of FOSTA/SESTA’s becoming law and look forward to reading the entries chosen by the contest judges. Wishing all the entrants (and everyone) all the best!

Love,

Emerald

“With this essay contest, our goal is to learn more about the legal and political residual effects of FOSTA/SESTA on businesses at large and for providers personally . . . while also supporting and helping improve the collective lives of a community that is increasingly and alarmingly under fire.”

-Slixa spokesperson Lee Jennings in the contest press release

The Vote of White Women in America and the Intersection of “-isms”

I wrote this post about a month ago. I didn’t post it then, as it seemed somewhat unrelated to immediate goings-on and to come a bit out of nowhere. That of course has now demonstrated itself to be a staggering irony.

There are many people (largely women of color) who have recognized the manifestation of what I write about here for some time. Though a lifelong liberal who has always voted Democratic, I am late in realizing it, largely due to oblivious privilege and not having to recognize it. I had planned to publish this post closer to the November midterm elections in the United States. Given that recent events in the US have brought this phenomenon into stark relief, now certainly seems close enough….

In contemporary human society, within every race, ethnicity, group, there have been female and male members. Obviously…that is how they reproduce. So within every group, however pitted these groups may be against each other, there has been (in modern society) the internal juxtaposition of a hierarchy between women and men. One of the most profound and pervasive distortions that has developed in the human species has purported to see the feminine, which we’ve generally (and superficially) perceived as represented by women, as inferior, subordinate, and weaker. The inaccuracy of this is stunning, but I’ll likely save the elucidation of that for another blog post.

In contemporary civilization, the white race has arbitrarily been considered superior. The degree to which this has been the case is not to be underestimated in exploring related and connected sociological phenomena such as the one I’m about to highlight. What it has meant in contemporary society is that whiteness has historically been the solid seat of authority in social, political, and economic realms, personally and collectively.

The combination of the above circumstances has put white women in an interesting position. They are women, so they have unquestionably been undervalued and discriminated against as women as a collective have. One of the ways the systematic oppression and undervaluing of female human beings has emerged is in the view of women as the property or domain of men. The perception that it is incumbent upon men to “protect” women is an extension of this.

Thus, white women have been in the societal position of being women, but they are also white—which means there is an underlying, often subconscious perception that they “belong” to white men, and in order to defend their own honor and perceived power, white men are willing to and/or insistent upon protecting them. Ultimately, the desecration of one group of people’s women by another group has historically been considered an affront to the first group’s men.

The way this may affect women is complex. The feminist perspective (such as that in me) rejects the idea as abhorrent and arbitrary nonsense. However, in a species that has regularly waged war and committed atrocities against its own members, the patriarchy I’ve described could (and has been known to) mean life or death for the women in question. Self-preservation versus idealism is a compelling and arguably relevant conflict indeed.

Hence, we return to the unique position of white women. I contend that unconsciously, white women recognize a “choice” between 1) the idealism of feminism and recognition of the subversion of their autonomy and the understandable desire for it to be socially recognized, and 2) the literal urge to be “protected” as women have been taught they need to be for millennia—which could indeed be the difference between their very survival and the lack thereof.

Women in no other group or race have been in quite the position white women have because the white race has been at the top of the arbitrary racial hierarchy. Thus, only white women have been under the purvey and protection of the most powerful group of people in the world—white men—and this has often been a fairly reliable means of survival, even if it meant subverting their autonomy and being oppressed within that survival, in addition to abandoning non-white women in terms of feminist idealism (stay tuned). It has taken, and does take, I would argue, a profound degree of awakening and awareness to reach a place where the unconscious reliance on this base method of physical survival (the dependence upon the protection of white men as part of their purvey or property) is superseded by both a perception of the potential of humanity beyond the oppressive distortions of sexism and racism and also a desire to align with and adhere to the emergence of that potential.

It seemed surprising to a lot of people, myself included, that many white women voted to allow Donald Trump to be officially installed as the President of the United States. Those of us who recognize his epitomization of many of the uglier aspects of historical patriarchy and sexism could hardly fathom how or why women could support in any way his acquiring a position of such authority over humanity.

Upon reflection, the above explains to me how they could have. There is still so much relative unconsciousness in us as a species that the desperate, clawing (and indeed understandable) urge toward self-preservation with no eye toward its cost exercises a gravitational pull on the parts of our psyches we have not brought to awareness or understanding yet. The women who voted this way were reflecting that. Unconsciously (most likely, anyway—some of them may have consciously recognized it, but not likely many), they perceived that their chances of survival were better if they were under the authority and protection of the most powerful social group, with whom they have historically been aligned, than if they struck out on their own and potentially alienated that alliance, even if that meant joining and collaborating with other groups whose autonomy and intrinsic value have not been equally recognized. They unconsciously chose the protection of the symbolic powerful white man, however sexist, unconscious, ignorant, unbecoming that specimen of white man was, because it seemed to represent their best—and/or most comfortable—chance of survival.

As is probably obvious to anyone who has read this blog lately (or ever), I hope they vote differently in the United States this November. But make no mistake, this phenomenon is far greater and goes far deeper than voting or American politics. It is only one of the ways we have so much work to do as a species—which ultimately must be done by and within each one of us—to wake up from the unconsciousness that has controlled us for so long and continues to. The unconscious holds powerful and profound distortions that thwart our individual and collective potential as a species. They manifest in ways such as this, that, much like many of our individual characteristics, perspectives, and actions, may be attributed to more superficial or immediate causes but that likely originate from unconscious places and for unconscious reasons we are not aware of. Becoming aware of them is part of the process of waking up; in my view, whether or not we do so will be the literal determination of the relatively imminent survival or demise of the human species.

Love,

Emerald

“Give me one moment in time, when I’m more than I thought I could be…and the answers are all up to me….”

-Whitney Houston “One Moment in Time”

The Vote of White Women in America (and the Intersection of “-isms”)

I wrote this post about a month ago. I didn’t post it then, as it seemed somewhat unrelated to immediate goings-on and to come a bit out of nowhere. That of course has now demonstrated itself to be a staggering irony.

There are many people (largely women of color) who have recognized the manifestation of what I write about here for some time. Though a lifelong liberal who has always voted Democratic, I am late in realizing it, largely due to oblivious privilege and not having to recognize it. I had planned to publish this post closer to the November midterm elections in the United States. Given that recent events in the US have brought this phenomenon into stark relief, now certainly seems close enough….

In contemporary human society, within every race, ethnicity, group, there have been female and male members. Obviously…that is how they reproduce. So within every group, however pitted these groups may be against each other, there has been (in modern society) the internal juxtaposition of a hierarchy between women and men. One of the most profound and pervasive distortions that has developed in the human species has purported to see the feminine, which we’ve generally (and superficially) perceived as represented by women, as inferior, subordinate, and weaker. The inaccuracy of this is stunning, but I’ll likely save the elucidation of that for another blog post.

In contemporary civilization, the white race has arbitrarily been considered superior. The degree to which this has been the case is not to be underestimated in exploring related and connected sociological phenomena such as the one I’m about to highlight. What it has meant in contemporary society is that whiteness has historically been the solid seat of authority in social, political, and economic realms, personally and collectively.

The combination of the above circumstances has put white women in an interesting position. They are women, so they have unquestionably been undervalued and discriminated against as women as a collective have. One of the ways the systematic oppression and undervaluing of female human beings has emerged is in the view of women as the property or domain of men. The perception that it is incumbent upon men to “protect” women is an extension of this.

Thus, white women have been in the societal position of being women, but they are also white—which means there is an underlying, often subconscious perception that they “belong” to white men, and in order to defend their own honor and perceived power, white men are willing to and/or insistent upon protecting them. Ultimately, the desecration of one group of people’s women by another group has historically been considered an affront to the first group’s men.

The way this may affect women is complex. The feminist perspective (such as that in me) rejects the idea as abhorrent and arbitrary nonsense. However, in a species that has regularly waged war and committed atrocities against its own members, the patriarchy I’ve described could (and has been known to) mean life or death for the women in question. Self-preservation versus idealism is a compelling and arguably relevant conflict indeed.

Hence, we return to the unique position of white women. I contend that unconsciously, white women recognize a “choice” between 1) the idealism of feminism and recognition of the subversion of their autonomy and the understandable desire for it to be socially recognized, and 2) the literal urge to be “protected” as women have been taught they need to be for millennia—which could indeed be the difference between their very survival and the lack thereof.

Women in no other group or race have been in quite the position white women have because the white race has been at the top of the arbitrary racial hierarchy. Thus, only white women have been under the purvey and protection of the most powerful group of people in the world—white men—and this has often been a fairly reliable means of survival, even if it meant subverting their autonomy and being oppressed within that survival, in addition to abandoning non-white women in terms of feminist idealism (stay tuned). It has taken, and does take, I would argue, a profound degree of awakening and awareness to reach a place where the unconscious reliance on this base method of physical survival (the dependence upon the protection of white men as part of their purvey or property) is superseded by both a perception of the potential of humanity beyond the oppressive distortions of sexism and racism and also a desire to align with and adhere to the emergence of that potential.

It seemed surprising to a lot of people, myself included, that many white women voted to allow Donald Trump to be officially installed as the President of the United States. Those of us who recognize his epitomization of many of the uglier aspects of historical patriarchy and sexism could hardly fathom how or why women could support in any way his acquiring a position of such authority over humanity.

Upon reflection, the above explains to me how they could have. There is still so much relative unconsciousness in us as a species that the desperate, clawing (and indeed understandable) urge toward self-preservation with no eye toward its cost exercises a gravitational pull on the parts of our psyches we have not brought to awareness or understanding yet. The women who voted this way were reflecting that. Unconsciously (most likely, anyway—some of them may have consciously recognized it, but not likely many), they perceived that their chances of survival were better if they were under the authority and protection of the most powerful social group, with whom they have historically been aligned, than if they struck out on their own and potentially alienated that alliance, even if that meant joining and collaborating with other groups whose autonomy and intrinsic value have not been equally recognized. They unconsciously chose the protection of the symbolic powerful white man, however sexist, unconscious, ignorant, unbecoming that specimen of white man was, because it seemed to represent their best—and/or most comfortable—chance of survival.

As is probably obvious to anyone who has read this blog lately (or ever), I hope they vote differently in the United States this November. But make no mistake, this phenomenon is far greater and goes far deeper than voting or American politics. It is only one of the ways we have so much work to do as a species—which ultimately must be done by and within each one of us—to wake up from the unconsciousness that has controlled us for so long and continues to. The unconscious holds powerful and profound distortions that thwart our individual and collective potential as a species. They manifest in ways such as this, that, much like many of our individual characteristics, perspectives, and actions, may be attributed to more superficial or immediate causes but that likely originate from unconscious places and for unconscious reasons we are not aware of. Becoming aware of them is part of the process of waking up; in my view, whether or not we do so will be the literal determination of the relatively imminent survival or demise of the human species.

Love,

Emerald

“Give me one moment in time, when I’m more than I thought I could be…and the answers are all up to me….”

-Whitney Houston “One Moment in Time”

American White Women’s Voting and the Intersection of “-isms”

I wrote this post about a month ago. I didn’t post it then, as it seemed somewhat unrelated to immediate goings-on and to come a bit out of nowhere. That of course has now demonstrated itself to be a staggering irony.

There are many people (largely women of color) who have recognized the manifestation of what I write about here for some time. Though a lifelong liberal who has always voted Democratic, I am late in realizing it, largely due to oblivious privilege and not having to recognize it. I had planned to publish this post closer to the November midterm elections in the United States. Given that recent events in the US have brought this phenomenon into stark relief, now certainly seems close enough….

In contemporary human society, within every race, ethnicity, group, there have been female and male members. Obviously…that is how they reproduce. So within every group, however pitted these groups may be against each other, there has been (in modern society) the internal juxtaposition of a hierarchy between women and men. One of the most profound and pervasive distortions that has developed in the human species has purported to see the feminine, which we’ve generally (and superficially) perceived as represented by women, as inferior, subordinate, and weaker. The inaccuracy of this is stunning, but I’ll likely save the elucidation of that for another blog post.

In contemporary civilization, the white race has arbitrarily been considered superior. The degree to which this has been the case is not to be underestimated in exploring related and connected sociological phenomena such as the one I’m about to highlight. What it has meant in contemporary society is that whiteness has historically been the solid seat of authority in social, political, and economic realms, personally and collectively.

The combination of the above circumstances has put white women in an interesting position. They are women, so they have unquestionably been undervalued and discriminated against as women as a collective have. One of the ways the systematic oppression and undervaluing of female human beings has emerged is in the view of women as the property or domain of men. The perception that it is incumbent upon men to “protect” women is an extension of this.

Thus, white women have been in the societal position of being women, but they are also white—which means there is an underlying, often subconscious perception that they “belong” to white men, and in order to defend their own honor and perceived power, white men are willing to and/or insistent upon protecting them. Ultimately, the desecration of one group of people’s women by another group has historically been considered an affront to the first group’s men.

The way this may affect women is complex. The feminist perspective (such as that in me) rejects the idea as abhorrent and arbitrary nonsense. However, in a species that has regularly waged war and committed atrocities against its own members, the patriarchy I’ve described could (and has been known to) mean life or death for the women in question. Self-preservation versus idealism is a compelling and arguably relevant conflict indeed.

Hence, we return to the unique position of white women. I contend that unconsciously, white women recognize a “choice” between 1) the idealism of feminism and recognition of the subversion of their autonomy and the understandable desire for it to be socially recognized, and 2) the literal urge to be “protected” as women have been taught they need to be for millennia—which could indeed be the difference between their very survival and the lack thereof.

Women in no other group or race have been in quite the position white women have because the white race has been at the top of the arbitrary racial hierarchy. Thus, only white women have been under the purvey and protection of the most powerful group of people in the world—white men—and this has often been a fairly reliable means of survival, even if it meant subverting their autonomy and being oppressed within that survival, in addition to abandoning non-white women in terms of feminist idealism (stay tuned). It has taken, and does take, I would argue, a profound degree of awakening and awareness to reach a place where the unconscious reliance on this base method of physical survival (the dependence upon the protection of white men as part of their purvey or property) is superseded by both a perception of the potential of humanity beyond the oppressive distortions of sexism and racism and also a desire to align with and adhere to the emergence of that potential.

It seemed surprising to a lot of people, myself included, that many white women voted to allow Donald Trump to be officially installed as the President of the United States. Those of us who recognize his epitomization of many of the uglier aspects of historical patriarchy and sexism could hardly fathom how or why women could support in any way his acquiring a position of such authority over humanity.

Upon reflection, the above explains to me how they could have. There is still so much relative unconsciousness in us as a species that the desperate, clawing (and indeed understandable) urge toward self-preservation with no eye toward its cost exercises a gravitational pull on the parts of our psyches we have not brought to awareness or understanding yet. The women who voted this way were reflecting that. Unconsciously (most likely, anyway—some of them may have consciously recognized it, but not likely many), they perceived that their chances of survival were better if they were under the authority and protection of the most powerful social group, with whom they have historically been aligned, than if they struck out on their own and potentially alienated that alliance, even if that meant joining and collaborating with other groups whose autonomy and intrinsic value have not been equally recognized. They unconsciously chose the protection of the symbolic powerful white man, however sexist, unconscious, ignorant, unbecoming that specimen of white man was, because it seemed to represent their best—and/or most comfortable—chance of survival.

As is probably obvious to anyone who has read this blog lately (or ever), I hope they vote differently in the United States this November. But make no mistake, this phenomenon is far greater and goes far deeper than voting or American politics. It is only one of the ways we have so much work to do as a species—which ultimately must be done by and within each one of us—to wake up from the unconsciousness that has controlled us for so long and continues to. The unconscious holds powerful and profound distortions that thwart our individual and collective potential as a species. They manifest in ways such as this, that, much like many of our individual characteristics, perspectives, and actions, may be attributed to more superficial or immediate causes but that likely originate from unconscious places and for unconscious reasons we are not aware of. Becoming aware of them is part of the process of waking up, and in my view, whether or not we do so will be the literal determination of either the survival or demise of the human species.

Love,

Emerald

“Give me one moment in time, when I’m more than I thought I could be…and the answers are all up to me….”

-Whitney Houston “One Moment in Time”

It’s Only Natural…Or Is It?

When I see claims about what is “natural” in contexts using natural as an argument for adhering to a particular behavior, I tend to wrinkle my brow. The argument—what is “natural”—seems a dubious one to me in that numerous things in which we have engaged historically and currently don’t necessarily seem natural.

I’m not sure what’s natural, for example, about inventing and building a cell phone and using it. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be done, just that I’m not sure what seems “natural” about it. To go even further, medical interventions, especially in contexts involving modern medical discoveries and technology, seem to me they could be deemed “unnatural.”

So if the postulation is that we shouldn’t be doing things that aren’t “natural” (I have seen non-heterosexual behavior or attractions, for example, labeled as such) or should stick to engaging in what is, I wonder exactly what those parameters would entail. And in wondering that, I question further that if one does not postulate that everything “unnatural” should be eradicated from our existence and pursuits, then why should some things considered not natural be? How are these chosen, and why is this criterion applied selectively?

Everything we have done historically and contemporarily as a species does not seem ideally supportive of either our species or the world in which it lives and thrives. So the idea that we possess and exercise an objective recognition of all the ways we’re “natural” seems highly suspect to me. If we do, we haven’t seemed to utilize this information very usefully.

The subject of evolution is, to me, in a similar vein. I see evolution as having little to do with our latest technical developments or capacity to build bigger buildings and faster methods of transportation. Those may certainly be viewed as technological advancements that appear to make aspects of our lives easier or more efficient, but they are not true evolution.

Evolution is a truly “natural” process that, it seems to me, a species (including ours) does not and will not recognize before or as it occurs—at least not fully. As I see it, evolution’s being beyond our capacity to conceive of seems intrinsic in its definition/concept. We do not and cannot predict it because it involves phenomena beyond our current capacity to observe or comprehend. It does not seem likely to me that fish slid up onto shores thinking, “Hey, maybe if we sit here long enough in outrageously and indeed life-threateningly uncomfortable circumstances, we’ll form a way to breathe in air and not water and start to live on land.” Despite our egoic way of thinking that unconsciously insists that we can know and control almost everything, that isn’t how evolution works.

I will note that it does seem to me there are ways we may develop enough awareness to sense aspects/degrees/directions of evolution and feel inclined to participate in it as best we can. The more we do this, in my observation, the more humility we develop about the subject so that recognizing that we don’t know what true evolution encompasses and choosing to participate in it anyway feels more forthcoming and becomes more likely due to increased attunement to the intrinsic desire to support what serves life.

An unconventional notion, unsolicited in my consciousness, occurred to me some time back. It was that perhaps attraction to the same sex is neither, as I have heard it asserted/maintained, “unnatural,” nor even simply a neutral phenomenon existing alongside heterosexual attraction—but rather, actually related to evolution of the human species.

It is arguable that we have overpopulated this planet. It is further arguable that if we continue to do so, our access to and ability to create and maintain the resources requisite to human life will be threatened. Perhaps same-sex attraction is a facet of evolution of the human species to naturally curb the species’ procreation. This could be a short-term support of our species’ longevity or a long-term or permanent inclusion that allows our population to tend to reproduce less.

This could additionally apply to gender perceptions. I would guess that the collective attachment to a gender binary and correlative gender identification that seems evident in the human species at this time has to do with deep-seated reproductive instincts. We have historically in fact (relatively new technologies notwithstanding) reproduced via biological male and female mating. Perhaps evolution/nature is guiding the human species more toward gender nuance in addition to same-sex attraction to naturally decrease the proclivity to procreate in order to protect our species and perhaps surrounding ecosystems/planet. Whether this is manifesting in an actual increase of same-sex attraction and gender blending or just an increased awareness, understanding, and acceptance of the same is not even necessarily relevant to the question; either phenomenon (or a combination of the two) could be a form of evolution in this way.

Or maybe not. But what struck me about this entire notion when it occurred to me is, how would we know? How would we know what nature is doing or what true evolution might look like for humanity? The idea that human beings are to do what is “natural” seems to imply that we know what is natural and how to act accordingly—and further, that we know the Universal intent and purpose of nature and humanity and how we fit into it.

I offer that we don’t. Can’t, even. Mystery is an inherent aspect of life. It seems to me nature and evolution are, ultimately, squarely within it.

American spiritual teacher Adyashanti has said,

“Personally, I find great comfort in the fact that if nature deems [that] the experiment called humanity hasn’t worked out well, it’ll do away with it. I’m not hoping that happens, but […] if we become that damaging, nature will just go, ‘Well, that didn’t work’ as it has done with almost every other species that has ever walked on the globe. […] Life will exterminate human beings if they no longer serve it.”

This seems a profound realization. Yes, to the egoic consciousness, it’s terrifying, and everyone should start frantically trying to do everything we can to prevent it. Except in recognition of how Adyashanti seems to be offering it, that’s not the point. Nature knows more than we do. Yes, we ideally want to support life as best we can. But if we don’t succeed in doing that, we simply will not be able to somehow overcome or “trick” nature.

None of this means we should stop attending to the practical implications of how we live, interact with each other, exercise choices, or engage with consciousness and existence. Indeed, Adyashanti goes on to say,

“[Simultaneously, to say], ‘Oh, well, we’ll just turn on our TV and see how it all ends up’ is a ridiculous, unconscious response to life also. It’s just that if we realize [the former quote], it can provide a certain lack of fear. And maybe [we] can respond to something in some way other than fear.”

In the midst of the harrowing events on the national stage of the United States over the past week and the practical and social implications of Brett Kavanaugh’s being confirmed to the US Supreme Court, I have said in a few conversations that it seems to me something bigger than what we see may be unfolding. I still feel that way, and the term “evolution” has occurred to me in this context. As would sensibly follow from what I’ve said here, I have no idea what the implications as such may be or how what is occurring now may be a part of a larger evolutionary picture, but that is part of the point…I truly do not feel we are privy to fully knowing what evolution is doing or how it is happening as it does.

That doesn’t mean I don’t care what’s happening on a practical level. I do. I recognize practical implications of Kavanaugh’s confirmation (which I do suspect will happen) that are searingly disturbing, just as I did when Donald Trump was declared the victor in the 2016 presidential election. I have wailed incoherently at times in the face of abominable actions on the part of the current United States administration, and that’s only within this country and in a national setting. As I commented on social media recently in a conversation briefly touching upon these things, “I just feel desire beyond words to support all who experience pain during the process.” (According to one of my favorite quotes, “All negative behavior is a result of unprocessed pain,” found in The Wisdom of the Enneagram by Don Richard Riso and Russ Hudson, that of course includes Donald Trump, Brett Kavanaugh, Lindsay Graham et. al., all of whom are indeed in considerable unconscious—and almost certainly sometimes conscious—pain.)

Being with and contemplating this unknowing, the recognition that the Universe is bigger than we are and knows so much more, tends to be vastly challenging. It can seem especially challenging to navigate a human life in this form simultaneous with that understanding. All that emerges in me to say right now is that I hold all in love as we do the best we know how. Even when some people’s “best” appears to me horrendously out of touch with what serves life, the recognition of unconditional love has come to seem in me a steadfast way to support what serves.

Love,

Emerald

“This is not the way we wanted this to be, and I can feel your doubt inside of me, we’re standing on the edge of everything we’ve ever seen…”

-Rob Thomas “Natural”

Patriarchy, Unconsciousness, and the United States Government

Like many people, I have recently felt somewhere along the spectrum of affected to triggered by both the accusations of sexual misconduct directed at Brett Kavanaugh and the response to them from politicians and the culture at large. Interestingly, I have perhaps felt most triggered so far by the insights in Lili Loofbourow’s article entitled “Brett Kavanaugh and the Cruelty of Male Bonding,” which resonates strongly with me.

Why? Because this is the kind of man that has, for as long as I can remember, been the one that has seethed me to my core. The kind I have historically most dreaded, most despised; by whom I have felt most enraged and toward whom I have felt violent urges that surprised me. I have yet to come close to carrying any such violent desires out, and at this point carrying them out no longer feels forthcoming or like the point. The point is that this is the kind of man I was always considering, always including, when I felt compelled to discount men as a whole, when I thought men and women were at intrinsic odds with each other. It was because I knew this kind of man existed.

The first error in that perspective was that I was identifying the men in question rather than the behavior. I am relieved to say it is now obvious to me that the behavior is what I despise rather than the human beings themselves.

The second is that there is no reason for different genders to intrinsically be at odds, of course. On the contrary. It is simply the patriarchy that provides the breeding ground for that perspective and that circumstance.

Of course, the patriarchy has been with our species for some time. So much so that we have become inoculated to it—we think it is literally the way life is, the way the species is built or designed or needs to exist. This, upon reflection, is not only patently absurd but fascinatingly ironic: It is ironic to perceive a structure within which we operate as a species as something inherent rather than as a result of any number of collective experiences, developments, circumstances, since we tend to recognize the case of the latter so easily in our individual lives.

I recently finished reading Cleopatra: A Life by Stacy Schiff. Cleopatra and Mark Antony ultimately faced defeat in a war waged by Augustus Caesar. Caesar rallied Rome’s populace with the same kind of fear and manipulation we use to rally large numbers of our species today. Caesar was of Rome, which, according to Schiff, had quite a different perspective about people and culture than did Egypt, which Cleopatra ruled. For one thing, they were far more patriarchal. For whatever reason, Egypt did not experience the rampant sexism Rome did at the time.

Astute readers may already have realized that means that the world could be a very different place had Cleopatra and Antony happened to prevail in that war. (As well as had the Roman perspective not been the one to thus largely convey the history of that time.) And that’s just one relatively small, though rather significant, instance of how an event in human history affected the perspective and experience—and socialization—of the species as a whole. If we consider how it is that our own individual lives could have taken innumerable trajectories, the intricate seeming chances and random tiny or large choices or incidents affecting them in unspeakably profound and inevitably unpredictable ways, is then so hard to imagine that the macrocosm, cultures, countries, indeed the whole of human history, reflects the same phenomenon? The human species could look inconceivably different for any of these kinds of incidents, turns, choices, collective events. They happened as they appeared to. They could have happened differently.

To assume the species’ trajectory or the perceptions as we currently experience them are the “natural way of things” or somehow intrinsic to the existence or survival of the species rather than, as we recognize in an individual sense, a series of incidents and choices from any number of potentialities and possibilities, represents an astonishing obliviousness and indication of the trappings and arrogance of the egoic mind.

The egoic mind being the one via which we’re usually perceiving.

***

I was in eighth grade when Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment. I was old enough that I remember hearing the names “Anita Hill” and “Clarence Thomas” but didn’t really understand why or what the conversation was about. I didn’t grasp the significance of a nomination to the Supreme Court, and I didn’t overtly know a lot about sexual harassment.

The other day, I watched a brief montage of scenes from Anita Hill’s 1991 questioning by the judiciary committee. I was aware that it was compiled to show some of the most egregious scenes and moments of those hearings, but I didn’t really need for it to. I know what that kind of questioning looks like, what it comprises, what it implies, what it demonstrates about the questioners and the contextual culture. I didn’t need to watch the senators to understand the repugnantly predictable treatment she underwent at that time.

Rather, I was interested in watching her. I had not been paying enough attention to do so at the time and had never seen footage of her testimony.

It took well under 30 seconds for me to feel no doubt she was telling the truth. This isn’t because of what she said in particular. It was just an awareness as I watched her. Granted, it’s not as though I had doubt before I watched the footage—like Christine Blasey Ford, she had nothing to gain by making such a thing up and much to lose. It’s just that watching her confirmed the confidence in me that Anita Hill was telling the truth.

Though I knew little to nothing about her accusations against Clarence Thomas at the time, much less the implications of what Clarence Thomas was being considered for and why Anita Hill was talking about whatever she was talking about, I do seem to recall getting the sense that there was something shameful, something improper, about the subject whenever her and Thomas’s names came up. I would say now that that didn’t actually have to do with the fact that she was offering an accusation of harassment. I would say it was because the very subject of sex was being touched upon. Because that’s how we tend to feel and speak whenever sexuality comes up. As though impropriety is somehow also instantly in the room.

This is one of the reasons we experience so much distortion around sexuality. Because we have learned for millennia that there is something shameful about it, something embarrassing, something that makes it so we shouldn’t talk about it or recognize it or respect it as much as we talk about and recognize and respect eating, for example, or exercising, or birthing, or creating. Sex is every bit as intrinsic as any of those things. It is, in fact, where we came from; it seems to me hard to get much more intrinsic to human life and experience than that.

And yet we find it a shameful, an embarrassing, a somehow inappropriate subject to talk sincerely about. Which manifests in things such as sexual repression, gender socialization and discrimination, an absence of sexuality education, sexual harassment, rape culture…and a situation where a young man can sexually assault someone in high school and be a serious contender for a seat on the United State Supreme Court decades later.

Nominated by a president whom we saw on tape say he grabs pussies without concern for consent.

***

Deborah Ramirez has stated that Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into her face without her consent. As Loofbourow points out, this is alleged to have been done in the company of a number of Kavanaugh’s male peers and thus, arguably, for their benefit as well, with little to no regard for the subject/recipient of his antics. This is indeed the kind of behavior that has stemmed from a patriarchy rooted in profoundly ugly distortions around the feminine, the masculine, and sexuality.

Some will already have noted that Brett Kavanaugh has continued to insert his presence where it is unwelcome, behaving the same way from what is now considered a more “adult” position of wielding official authority via channels of government- or corporate-rendered authority. As a judge, he has had the government-sanctioned clout to dictate what women do with their bodies, to metaphorically shove his penis in their space without their interest or consent, unconsciously feeling his said anatomy should be the last word, the highest priority, something to be wielded indiscriminately with greater impunity than any woman’s right to her autonomy and sexuality.

That is, ultimately, what Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump, Lindsay Graham, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch have in common in this situation. The unconscious attachment to their penises as a symbol of an authority granted solely by the fragile and arbitrary structure of patriarchy is a higher priority to them than anything women in general say, feel, or do. More important, even, than women’s very existence as autonomous human beings. Influenced by unconscious fear and insecurity, these men have been driven to see their penises as the most important thing in the room.

In that respect, I differ with them greatly.

***

A perspective that has been notable to me of late is that of Lindsey Graham, who has expressed to the press that he thinks Christine Blasey Ford “is being used [by the Democrats] here.” Ah, yes. Such a silly little girl she is, so eager for random Democrats’ approval that she concocted a careful story that is so careful she doesn’t remember certain details of it (not recalling certain details is, as we all know, an excellent way to convince potential skeptics) just so they would pat her on the back and tell her what a good job she did! She of course found it worthwhile to forgo her sense of personal safety and the feeling that she and her family could safely remain living in their own home in order to be used in this way. Or, wait, maybe she just naively doesn’t realize she’s being used! It’s not as though she has a doctorate in psychology and may possess a little more insight into the motivations of some who may be intending to “use” her or anything.

It is unfortunate that Lindsey Graham is choosing to exhibit the condescension and entitlement of an individual lacking the wherewithal and/or courage and/or maturity to recognize and evolve beyond the level of ignorance, obliviousness to privilege, and unconsciousness that have influenced his public service in a way certainly exemplified in this instance. Graham has also indicated that he does not intend to “ruin Judge Kavanaugh’s life over this.” Interestingly, not promoting someone to sit on the highest court of the most officially powerful country in the world is arguably not “ruining one’s life.” It is disallowing someone from acceding to a position of official authority that one’s previous actions have arguably disqualified one for.

It could perhaps be argued that enduring online and offline harassment, receiving death threats, and feeling forced to move out of one’s home for the safety of one’s self and family could be considered “ruining” of one’s current life…. That hasn’t seemed to occur to Lindsey Graham. It could be that he considers Blasey willing to ruin her own life in order to “ruin” Kavanaugh’s. An interesting perspective. Or it could be something else, something we seem rather uncomfortable considering or confronting, which seems understandable given how breathtakingly appalling it is.

Which would be, though Lindsay Graham and his ilk are unlikely to admit it out loud, that they don’t think what Brett Kavanaugh is accused of doing is really a big deal.

Unconsciously, one of the distortions of the perspective that sees patriarchy as the “natural way of things” is that women literally are not only subservient and inferior to men but that what that means is that women’s autonomy literally doesn’t exist. Put another way, that when it comes right down to it, women belong to men. That would of course mean that they don’t have a right to their bodies, which also belong to men.

This may sound farfetched or like something no one perceives anymore. I am indeed talking about a deeply unconscious perspective, so it is not likely to be forthcomingly evident to many’s conscious awareness. That is, however, how the unconscious works. And it is why, as much overt progress on the surface as society has made in securing legal rights for women in some areas of the world on subjects of domestic violence, sexual assault, and obtaining safe and legal abortion care, there is still a prevalent faction of society that, to more or less subtle degrees depending on the subject and the surrounding circumstances, just doesn’t see these things quite the same way some others of us do.


It is because they are strongly unconsciously gripped by the (ultimately arbitrary) view of patriarchy as a structure/system of operation. They erroneously think it is a way of operating intrinsic to the existence of humanity, and it ultimately tells them that women are under the purvey of men such that their autonomy doesn’t actually exist. To this end, sexual assault itself also wouldn’t actually exist. They can make a show or even think they believe consciously that it is sometimes heinous (not likely when done by a husband, as marriage may be seen according to this view as official ownership of a woman by a man, but perhaps by a stranger—especially if the woman is already spoken for by another man, in which case the assault actually becomes an offense against the latter man), but ultimately, it comes down to a set of maneuverings among men. The women are pawns, possessions. What is done to them has implications for the men under whose perceived “ownership” they are (father, husband, etc.); if they are under no one’s ownership, they are a potential threat to the patriarchy itself, a wayward existence that doesn’t “fit” yet and offers no reason to be considered credible or particularly important.

Again, many people would not likely realize influence from such a perspective, much less own up to it. The unconscious is a powerful thing. Our calling as human beings is to explore it in ourselves to see how it is controlling us, distorting our perspective, hindering our potential to offer the love and beauty we intrinsically are to the world.

To be clear, this is every bit as much my work as it is anyone and everyone else’s. To return to how I started this post, twenty years ago, the punitive, rageful perspective in me was abundant and dominant. I did not carry out violence at the time, but I knew I felt strongly that some individuals—specifically, men who acted like Brett Kavanaugh has been accused of acting—should receive the death penalty immediately upon conviction with little opportunity for appeal. (Ironically, at that time, I had little enough comprehension about what is called the justice system in this country that I didn’t realize how uncommon such convictions actually were. Which, I hope anyone reading this realizes, has nothing to do with how common the actual acts are.) I will admit to having wanted to perform it myself. But here’s the thing—and this is important: These very intense feelings I had about perpetrators of sexual assault were 1) utterly fueled by unconscious patterns and fears in me, and 2) alarmingly oblivious to everyone’s ultimate humanity and the understanding that we are, quite literally, all One. Number two, by the way, was a direct result of number one.

At that time, I was fully unaware of this. I also, at that time, wanted to be a cop and run for public office someday. I was maneuvering my way through life thinking I was actually “right” about things, and had I pursued either of those ambitions to their realization, I would have been acting in those capacities in direct response to the unconscious distortions that were at that time my view of the world. I truly thought the way I saw it was an appropriate foundation for public policy rather than simply a reflection of the collection of unconscious patterns in me that had formed largely in response to experiences I perceived in my childhood development.

(This is not, I am sorry to say, an uncommon phenomenon.)

At this point, I have done a degree of work to see some of the unconscious influences in me with the aim of awakening to the true connectedness of all beings and offering what serves via this life I’ve been offered. That, of course, is why I’m aware of the distortedness of the perspective I identified with twenty years ago. It is why I now see the death penalty as astonishingly and heartbreakingly misguided, and why I can simultaneously look back and clearly recognize and understand why I felt so strongly about it back then. There was much unconscious rage and aggression in me heavily influencing how I saw the world twenty years ago.

It takes attention, intention, support, groundedness, and awareness to position and allow ourselves to perceive what is unconscious in us. It is also the only way we will truly release the limitations and projections that wield, both individually and collectively, as well as to our profound detriment, far too much influence on our species right now.

Love,

Emerald

“You wash your hands, you come up clean, but fail to recognize the enemy’s within, you say we’re not responsible, but we are, we are…”

-Ana “We Are”

Pernicious Perspectives and the Abomination of #FOSTA / #SESTA

“Sex+ Work” to the left to see how many). I advocate decriminalization of all forms of consensual sex work and dream of the day the social stigma around it has dissolved.

And I feel a bit like I perceive a new conundrum around it. I used to think that the majority of people just didn’t understand. That there was so much ignorance around sex work because the perspective that sex workers are sub-human and undeserving of basic rights and respect and autonomy was questioned so infrequently, assumed to be acceptable so automatically, perceived so often without even conscious choice or recognition, that people failed to realize how arbitrary, unfounded, and inhumane that perspective is. I truly thought that if people stopped to consider the existence of consensual sex work as an industry like most others, they would quickly recognize how nonsensical and tragically misguided the mainstream perspective around it was.

Now, I find myself wondering if that was naïve of me. It has seemed more and more evident of late that some people simply don’t like sex work or that it exists. Yes, I have understood this to some degree, but as I mentioned, I truly trusted that in large part, it was ignorance rather than malevolence that drove the perpetration of dismissiveness, degradation, and dehumanization of sex workers. Recently it seems, though, that an active aspiration to malign may be more prominent than I have realized. It is something, I have noticed, that often seems to manifest as a desire to actually punish sex workers for their very engagement in the profession.

The recent passage and existence of support for the passage of FOSTA/SESTA have highlighted this phenomenon for me. Trafficking, of course, is an entirely separate issue from sex work itself. Denial of that is indicative of a perspective that maintains that sex work could never be consensual. I admit this perspective is so bewilderingly nonsensical to me that I do not exactly know what to say to it at this point except to ask those who hold it to speak to sex workers who are doing it consensually. If you do so, and you you refuse to accept their viewpoint, ask yourself why?

The predictable ill-effects of the noxious passage of FOSTA/SESTA have already been reported on a number of times (here, here, here, and here are a few). I truly cannot understand how well-intentioned people who are paying attention could not understand these implications and circumstances at this point.

Granted, if one is not paying attention or interested in considering this entire subject area, one could be fairly easily manipulated: a reframing of the loathing of sex workers seems to have emerged as a claim to want to fight sex trafficking.* This reframing aims to position its crusade as helping victims. Significantly, however, the movement frequently postulates a conflation between trafficking in the area of sex and consensual sex work. This is not only a deliberate effort to erase the idea that consensual sex work exists but also a prominent threat to a clear and grounded discussion about the topic of sex work in general.

To some degree, what purports itself as the anti-sex trafficking effort is arguably the same underlying aggressive desire to punish those who work in the sex industry dressed up in different clothing. Why?

1) Because trafficking in humans is related to numerous forces including poverty, economics, gender socialization, geographic inequality in terms of living conditions, and other factors that are much more difficult to actually address then to try to throw more laws at something that is already illegal (trafficking);

and, more pointedly,

2) because trafficking occurs in various industries, but none seems to be targeted except (or at least nearly as much as) the sex industry. There is little to no outcry about saving victims of human trafficking in the farm, fishing, or domestic labor industries despite evidence in the United States’ own reports on trafficking in persons that all of these industries have seen just as much, if not more, trafficking than commercial sex has. I have yet to see any proposed law holding websites liable for trafficking in the farm or fishing industries because they sell food online or efforts to “eliminate the demand” for or criminalize the farm or domestic services industries in order to eradicate trafficking in them.

Like so many other legal or political measures pretending to be or do something they aren’t or won’t, FOSTA and SESTA are measures that without a lot of examination look like a great idea and are certainly touted as such by their supporters. With just a little bit of consideration combined with the kind of questioning I am lamenting the absence of above, however, it becomes obvious that they will do nothing but make sex workers’ lives more difficult. The idea that controlling websites will somehow make things more challenging for traffickers who already work outside the bounds of the law and will do what they need to do to perpetuate their grossly unconscious aims with little care for law or anyone’s well-being is easily recognized as absurd. (This is to say nothing of the overt threat to free speech encompassed in the measures, which I am not covering in this post.)

It appears that the measure is simply something that allows those who hate sex work and want to punish its workers, consciously or unconsciously, to do so without appearing as though that is their aim. It allows others who have not considered the well-being of sex workers (which I hold is most people) to feel like they are helping someone despite not consulting or, ironically, even really caring about those they are congratulating themselves for helping.

I am to the point where I frankly feel the mysterious active dislike of sex work is more harmful to sex workers than almost anything about the job itself. A common view seems to be that some unique notion of or type of harm is somehow intrinsic to the profession of sex work. I have yet to feel convinced of that at all and question why many people seem to be. (My offering to those who are is again to seek out the perspectives of sex workers—probably most easily done online—and consider what they say about that perspective and/or how they experience their job and why they choose to do it.) What I am convinced of is that the following are of direct, immediate, and practical harm to those who choose to work in the sex trade: the criminalization of their profession or of their clientele (also known as the Nordic model); the social stigma around it; and the denial of social, medical, and legal services to them because of either or both of these circumstances. All of these stem not from the work itself but from a zealous and intense dislike of the very existence of it.

recommended and quoted from once on this blog. Here, I myself will say that there is a fine (if existent) line between saying, “The abuse you endured is not your fault,” with which I wholeheartedly agree, and saying, “It wasn’t your fault that you endured sexual abuse when you were a child, but now you’re making a faulty decision as a result of it, and you don’t and can’t realize that because you don’t know any better due to what happened to you as a child. It wasn’t your fault that it happened, but now you don’t have the capacity to live your life and make adult choices, so I’ll tell you what to do since I know better and can thus see that what you’re doing is bad even though you can’t.” To deny a competent adult the autonomy to choose their own profession regardless of their past experiences is disempowering, infantilizing, and intrusive. It is reducing them to their experience of abuse and saying that they themselves are not capable of the awareness to make subsequent choices in their lives—only you know what is best for them because they simply can’t because of what they experienced in the past.

It is difficult for me to imagine a more disempowering (and wholly inappropriate) approach to someone who experienced personal violation at a time when they could not protect or defend themselves.

If your point is that those people should have other options or access to psychological or medical support, by all means, let’s do what we can to offer it. That of course is another economic issue that seems ignored in this relatively easy quest to suppress the rights and livelihoods of sex workers. Actually addressing the extraordinary inequality of access to health care, including mental health care, in our species would call for a tremendous amount of introspection and grounded consideration. It appears indeed much easier to perpetuate the largely unquestioned perspective that sex work is just “bad” and somehow almost exclusively performed by people who are abused as children as though that somehow invalidates their present circumstances and choices (and as though those who experienced such abuse as children don’t also choose other professions; are those choices invalid as well?).

The widely held perspectives and actions above represent circumstances that perpetuate an injustice to autonomous adults who choose to work in the sex industry, make their lives more practically difficult, force sex workers into more dangerous scenarios due to the illegality of their job, facilitate survival sex workers’ entrance into states of poverty, and in some cases, all of the above. They are also, arguably, perpetuating our own underlying fear of, issues around, and/or lack of reverence for human sexuality in a way that intrudes upon consenting adults’ experience of it. It is high time for us to realize this and allow shift and release around the tremendous distortion historical and collective perspectives about sex work comprise.

As usual, I invite us to begin by looking inward.

Love,

Emerald

*Human trafficking in any industry, for any purpose, is one of the most aborrent and horriifying displays of the unconsciousness of our species. I see that as undeniable. I do not deny that trafficking exists, and like everyone I have ever spoken to or seen speak or write on the subject, I earnestly wish for its dissolution. This post is not intended to undermine the existence and tragedy of trafficking; rather, I aspire with it to illuminate the misguided and often deliberate contention that sex trafficking and sex work are the same thing and why that is of significant detriment to those who choose to work in the sex industry.

“This is the world we live in, and these are the names we’re given, stand up and let’s start showing just where our lives are going to…”

-Disturbed “Land of Confusion” (originally by Phil Collins)

The Literal Power of Love

When I was five years old, I got lost at Walt Disney World. I remember the moment I looked around and realized I was in a sea of people, none of whom I recognized, and that I didn’t know where my family was. I immediately started crying, and within seconds, a gentleman approached and picked me up. He asked if I was lost. I said yes just as another gentleman approached and asked the first if I was lost. The first gentleman answered in the affirmative as my increasingly anguished wails grew louder.

The next thing I remember, I was in what seemed like a lounge of sorts. There was a couch, and I sat on it sobbing while a few grownups spoke kindly to me about how I was liking Walt Disney World and what kinds of things I liked to do back home. I had no concentration for any such conversation, however, because I didn’t know where family was or what was going to happen to me. The prospect of never seeing them again and not having any idea how they might find me brought forth an emotional overwhelm I couldn’t begin to describe then and am still at a loss to articulate now, 36 years later.

The kind adults gave me postcards with Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck on them and asked if that might help me stop crying. Even at age five, I remember wondering if they were out of their minds, thinking a postcard might help me stop crying when I had no idea whether I’d ever see my family again.

I was not comprehending at the time that my parents had already been located and were on their way to the lost child center where I was.

All in all, I think I spent a total of about fifteen minutes being lost. (I was actually astonished to learn that years later when my parents and I were talking about it.) It felt literally like hours to my child self, though a more accurate description is probably that time itself seemed immaterial because every instant was simply a moment I didn’t know where everything I had up to that point found familiar about my life was.

So to recap, at the start of the ordeal, I had been approached almost instantly by someone benevolent who wanted to help me, followed by someone else just as well-intentioned. I was taken to a place where people were kind to me, and I was offered both words and gestures to comfort me.

And I still found those few minutes some of the most unspeakably, and unavoidably, terrifying of my lifetime.

I cannot stand that there are children at the border of this country going through an experience 1,000 times more terrifying and traumatic than mine given that they are without kind people wanting to help them, without being offered comforts to console them, and most importantly, without their parents on their way to arrive within moments to take them back home.

I melt into tears as I write that. And as I have almost every time I actually read something about or just stop to consider and pray for the families that are undergoing indescribable horror and trauma at the border of the United States of America. It is something I hereto would not have imagined would occur in the United States of America…well, until November 9, 2016, that is, when the wretched sense of foreboding I had about what had just occurred in this country made seeing this a year and a half later not entirely surprising, if no less horrifically surreal-seeming.

Here’s the thing—and I am being utterly sincere and non-hyperbolic here. There is no reason, no excuse anyone can give, that makes what is happening at the border justifiable. I don’t care what your political perspective it is. I don’t care what your legal perspective it is. I don’t care what possible reason you could be using to justify not finding what is occurring a complete disgrace. Because there isn’t one. “It’s the law”? So was slavery. Seriously, are you fucking kidding me? You truly think it’s okay to take children who aren’t even old enough to speak away from their parents and let them experience acute and indescribable emotional suffering because “it’s the law” without recognizing that obviously any legal framework into which such a thing fits is profoundly distorted and calls for immediate shift?

If so, you are in a frightening place. And that means humanity is as well.

If you think Trump has not been fully complicit in what is happening and could have indeed put a stop to it at any time, that indicates a different and less immediate threat but a grievous one nonetheless. It means that for some reason you are perceiving something in as distorted or close to as distorted a manner as Trump himself is. Often it feels difficult for me to know how to support everyone’s (including Trump’s) awakening from this distortion because the sheer insanity of it can seem so mind-blowing. I continue, however, to wish for that awakening indeed and aspire to do all I can to support and facilitate it.

It can feel difficult to know what to do right now or how to help. For those, like myself, who want to, I offer this:

Love. Love everyone. Love all. Truly.

I understand this may make no sense. And that if it does make sense, it may appear an extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, order. In fact, I invite anyone reading this to not try to “figure out” or understand what it means. Instead, take a deep breath and just let the offering penetrate. See how it affects you. “Love.” Because there is a part of us that is aware of what love truly is, and that part of us is also aware that love is ultimately what we are. All of us. Yes, that means Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions and Rudy Giuliani too. All of us are love. It cannot be any other way.

Love is what will get us out of this mess. It is what serves to remind those who have forgotten, who are consciously cut off from this awareness and acting from utter unconscious distortion, of what is true. The incredible strength, courage, truth of fierce love.

I understand the challenge. I do. I will falter in this aspiration at times as much as anyone will. But please, if you want to help, love. Love with all you’ve got. Take a deep breath, allow the fury, the overwhelm, the awareness of the horror. Don’t hold that back. That is real, and that is true. It is a part of our experience, and it will do no good to suppress or try to avoid it. Allow it. Be with it. Breathe consciously and feel it in your body.

And allow love at the same time. Hold it. Hold it all.

Let love do its job—a job we ourselves cannot control or actually even do. We can only allow it. Allow as much love in—and out—as you can. It is our only way out of this.

Love,

Emerald

I’m relying on your common decency, so far it hasn’t surfaced but I’m sure it exists…

-Depeche Mode “People Are People”

Sweet as Candy Lovers!

I am thrilled to announce the release of Candy Lovers: Sugar Erotica, the latest anthology to be published with a story of mine in it! I am especially excited that this happened right in the heart of baseball season, which has nothing to do with the anthology itself but has a definite relation to my story in it, “Out of the Park.”

This anthology, which is not only edited but also self-published by Rachel Kramer Bussel, is all about sweet—candy, sugar, syrup, soda…and, of course, sex. It’s thrilling to share pages again with some of my favorite colleagues like Donna George Storey, Kristina Wright, Sacchi Green, Sommer Marsden, Shanna Germain, and Rachel herself. I’ve been on a bit of an unintentional hiatus from writing for a couple years, so it is really lovely to have something published again!

second). While I wrote “Out of the Park” years ago, I gave it a heavy edit to incorporate and emphasize the sweet theme of this latest anthology of Rachel’s.

Candy Lovers is, incidentally, Rachel’s first foray into self-publishing, so a desire to support that is an additional reason to check this book out! It is free for Kindle Unlimited readers and is available at the following links:

Amazon US

Amazon UK

Amazon elsewhere

Love,

Emerald

My breath caught as I followed his gaze. My favorite player was standing several feet from the dugout, talking to his teammates while they did a few last-minute warm-up stretches. He was our team’s catcher, the player whose name and number were on the back of the jersey I wore, and unquestionably my number one crush in baseball. I stared unabashedly for several seconds, adrenaline coupled with immediate sexual attraction swishing through me like a searchlight. Before I could stop myself, I called out his name. His eyes flicked up and for an instant met mine before he turned his attention back to the configuration on the field.

-from “Out of the Park”

The Closest I Get to Football

I will be the first to acknowledge that I don’t follow football. I know very little about it, I feel even less interest in it, and I experience no desire for that to shift. However! I have, for some mysterious reason, been known to attend a Super Bowl party here and there over the years. Doing so had virtually nothing to do with football for me, of course, but I remember enjoying the food and company.

I also have known numerous people who are football fans and follow teams and the game as closely as I’ve been known to follow, for example, baseball. All of this is to say that I happen to have written a story that opens with a Super Bowl party—a party that ends up seeming fairly important to the interaction that happens subsequent to it. :) This story happens to be the title tale of my short story collection Safe.

As with many stories I’ve written, there is autobiography woven into “Safe”, though in subtle and interspersed ways that would be hard to explain. The one football-related autobiographical aspect of it is that it was inspired by someone I do know, and I have experienced him as a considerable football fan and someone who would be indeed thrilled were his team to play in, much less win, the Super Bowl.

So in the vague tradition I seem to have started for 2018 of posting story excerpts that correlate to holidays, dates, or events currently occurring :D, I’m sharing here an excerpt of this story. “Safe” was the final story I wrote for this collection, and perhaps appropriately, it closes the book out. Like “Hers to Keep” (from my New Year’s post), this story was one of the ones that was previously unpublished.

from “Safe”:

When the game resumed, Ericka was having trouble sitting still between the physical proximity to Sam and the awareness that he would go home to an empty apartment after he left there. The excitement of the game, even though she had no idea what was going on in it, kept her adrenaline on high, which, coupled with her immediate attraction, translated directly into arousal. With two minutes left on the play clock, she could feel the tension in Sam as he zeroed in on the TV. The heat emanating from his body made her want to jump on him. She tried to focus instead on the whistles and commentary and announcements coming from the surround-sound speakers.

After lots of stops and starts of the game clock that she didn’t understand, play resumed, and some of the people in the room rose to their feet as the seconds ticked down. Ericka wasn’t sure what was happening, but she had the impression it was favorable as the suspense in the room heightened. Abruptly the friends around her exploded into pandemonium, screaming and jumping and hugging as similar antics occurred on the screen among the coaches and players dressed in the same colors as most of the occupants of the room.

Ericka deduced their team had just won the Super Bowl.

Sam turned and pulled her to her feet, and she laughed as he swept her into a hug. As he set her down, his lips pressed against hers in a moment of giddy exuberance, and she caught her breath as he pulled away almost as quickly to continue celebrating. Her body tingled as she watched the glee around her, a newfound exhilaration of her own pulsing from her core.

Soon Sam turned back to her. “I’m sorry—I hope that was okay,” he said near her ear. His smile was a bit sheepish as he backed up to look her in the eye. “My excitement got the better of me for a second.”

Ericka met his eyes squarely. “Lucky for me.”

Sam’s expression shifted, and the noise around them seemed to dull as he looked at her for an extended moment. He appeared to hesitate, as though working to find words, and Ericka was just about to relieve him of the effort when he spoke.

“Would you like to come home with me?”

Ericka couldn’t hold back a breathless chuckle. She stepped closer to him, holding his gaze. “Are you happy your team just won?”

Sam’s grin was electrifying, and he took her hand as they turned to find their coats.

***

Ericka had never been in Sam’s apartment before, and her core buzzed with excitement at the prospect as he unlocked the door.

“It’s a little sparse right now,” he said as he led her inside, closing the door behind her. “Cody took his furniture with him, of course.”

Indeed the only things in the open, square room were the understated entertainment center in a corner below a flat screen-TV, the L-shaped burgundy couch opposite it, and a mahogany coffee table in between.

Ericka, however, felt little concern about the furniture or any lack of it.

“Do you want a tour, or do you want—?” Sam began, and Ericka turned to him. He broke off his own sentence as she stepped toward him, and his mouth landed on hers with an urgency this time, stealing her breath as her body plunged immediately into craving mode.

Though it’s not obvious in this excerpt, “Safe” has an underlying serious streak in it. It was an interesting story to write, and I knew from the beginning of doing so both the story’s title and that I wanted it to also be the title of the entire collection. Thank you for reading, and happy February!

Love,

Emerald

For a man to make her come, he could only barely touch her. Careful. Gentle. Delicate even.

Rarely did she allow it.

-from “Safe”