He Said He Would [Politics]

It's really shocking to me how many people on both sides think 47 is not going to do just EXACTLY what he says he's going to do. They just keep thinking THEIR water's edge will be HIS water's edge. And it won't.

Both buyer's-remorse conservatives getting their faces leopard-eaten because they thought they were at the top of the social hierarchy AND the "Stop overreacting" white dudes with surprised Pikachu faces every. single. fucking. time. they are proven wrong about what they condescendingly mansplain/whitesplain/cissplain to marginalized people he can't or won't. They ALL seem to labor under the same assumption. He can't/won't/wouldn't/couldn't do "that."

Actually, he telegraphs every single move.

Exactly. Precisely.

I mean, he lies. So there's that. If his mouth is moving, he's lying. This is a guy who says he's taller than Obama (he's not), insisted that Kansas City is in Kansas (it's in Missouri), and used a sharpie on a National Weather Service infographic because he insisted a hurricane was going to make impactful landfall in Alabama (it wasn't, and didn't). And, of course, he says he hasn't even heard of the playbook literally put forward by all of HIS people for exactly what THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH intends to do to keep liberals from even being a roadblock to oligarchical and bigoted agendas. 

Even though he only mentioned his ignorance of Project 2025 once he found out it was wildly unpopular even on the right, and despite the fact that to even REMOTELY believe that bullshit, you would have to accept that a bunch of trusted advisors and aides surrounding him during his campaign didn't run their GRAND plan past the ONE person that was absolutely integral to its success with so much as a, "This cool with you?" But sure. He never heard of it. Right.

But he IS a liar. That's demonstrably true without even breaking a sweat. He said he'd build a wall and didn't. He says he's got the most beautiful plan for healthcare and doesn't have the first clue where to even begin. He says he won golf tournaments he didn't. That he nearly boarded helicopters he didn't. That he saw things he didn't. That people said things to him who didn't. He lies about not really knowing Michael Cohen. His golf scores. The size of his….inauguration. He breaks promises. He claims he's the smartest person on Earth and makes up people who think so. 

He's just….a liar.

So I can see there being some confusion about what truth even MEANS to a person like this—if he even has enough of a sense of reality to express truth. I can see why someone who hadn't been through four years of Trump might believe he was full of piss and wind. Like maybe nothing he says can be trusted, so why trust his threats against marginalized communities? 

But there are patterns to his "alternative facts." He also floats political ideas as throw away statements and then starts banging on them if he doesn't get pushback. He has the "tells" of a shitty poker player. He uses not-at-all-slick coded language to couch his racism and bigotry, most recently saying DEI when he means non-white or women or disabled or non cishet. 

And it's really clear, after you watch him for a while, who he's about to go after. 

He showed us exactly who he was nine years ago when he was running. He told us who he wanted to hurt. He told us who he hated and who he was pissed off at. He told us how important it was to hurt them. He revealed his racism over and over again. Then for four years he never wavered in being exactly the person he showed us he was. 

They said he would disclose his financial records. They were wrong.
They said he wouldn't go after Roe v. Wade. They were wrong.

They said he wouldn't have a major impact on the Supreme Court. They were wrong. (He got three appointments.

They said the CIA would never "let" him do any REAL damage to national security. They were wrong.

They said he wouldn't give massive tax cuts to the rich. They were wrong.

They said he wouldn't send the military into space. They were wrong.

They said he would take a global pandemic seriously. They were wrong.

They said he wouldn't contest the results of a democratic election. They were wrong.
They said he wouldn't leak secrets to Russia. They were wrong.

They said he wouldn't run the presidency for his personal profit. They were wrong.

They said he COULDN'T politicize the justice department. They were wrong.

They said he couldn't blatantly obstruct the Muller investigation. They were wrong.
They said he wouldn't pardon people who had attacked police and staged an insurrection. They were wrong.
They said he COULDN'T pardon himself. They were wrong (thanks to those three appointments).
They said he wouldn't dangle the Ukraine military aid in exchange for a quid pro quo investigation into his political rivals. They were wrong.
They said someone would stop him if he was found to be guilty of a quid pro quo with Ukraine. They were wrong.
They said he would never openly work with neonazis. They were wrong.

They said he respected democracy and wouldn't fire whistleblowers or bar access to the media. They were wrong.

They said they didn't think he would start trade wars that raised the price of everything. They were wrong. 

They said they didn't think he would deport the law-abiding people doing menial jobs that no US citizen wanted to do. They were wrong.

They said they didn't think he'd deport their undocumented spouses. Or the people that voted for him. They were wrong.
They said his party would stop him if he went TOO far and wouldn't enable his most outlandish bullshit.

They. Were. Wrong.

And apparently they aren't yet tired yet of being so utterly completely wrong.

People just keep thinking there's some adult in the room that's going to tell him no. Tell him how unpopular his policies are. Slow his roll. Stand up with arms akimbo and say, "Executive orders can't do that. You have overreached! Stand down, servant of the public. Stand DOWN!!"  There isn't an adult in that room. He's fired them all. He's surrounded himself with lickspittle sycophant flunkies because those are the only people his narcissistic fragile ego can handle. 

His learning curve is hardly Machiavellian, but he will do what he said he would. He has hit some speed bumps because he's comically incompetent. He will need to fire some people who've said no to him…purge some agencies that investigated his allies…. Undermine the power of the judicial branch. Edge congress out of lawmaking. Put his people everywhere..

But he will. He will do what he intends to and there's no restraining force outside of resistance to talk him down. Project 2025. Pull out of treaties. End critical aid to countries ravaged by colonialism. Trash NAFTA. Trade wars. Target the LGBTQ+ community. Assist in the genocide of Gaza. Let the world burn. Start wars. Go for a third term. 

Everything. 

The Weaponization of Magick in Toxic Positivity

There's a problem I see with most neopagans and modern practitioners….

First of all, let's be real. There IS something to some of the claims practitioners make. One of the most fascinating things I've found about the magick I practice is that it's usually traces about 90% of all the same lines as scientifically backed psychology. You don't even have to go too far into the transpersonal realm for most of it. Spiritual psychology, existential psychology, and humanistic psychology are all looking at things humans have been doing for forever to see why they help us lead more fulfilling lives.

Meditation is good for you, even if you're taking a guided journey to meet your guardians, spirits, ancestors, gods or higher powers. Keeping a physical metaphor of your intention on your person to remind you of your objective can help you focus whether you call that a charm or a foci. Your unconscious mind can be influenced with visualizations—whether you call it affirmations or glamours; by repetition—whether you call them mottos, slogans, or mantras; or by intense focus on your desires—whether you call that autosuggestion or manifestation. 

Parts work in psychology is SO much like shadow work that the first time I did the latter my shadow was already well developed and already waiting to talk to me. Habit stacking is useful to add things you want to do as a daily routine even if you call it ritual practice. Journaling helps you think straight and keep track of your long-term thought arcs whether you're doing it as an intellectual exercise or a spiritual practice. Time in nature is grounding and rejuvenating whether or not you hug a single tree. Higher powers don't need to be sentient beings to give our lives meaning and purpose. Service gives us emotional resilience whether we do it as a calling or simply because we see the need to reach out and bridge the divides that wound the human family. 

Yes, you can transform into a better version of yourself if you believe in yourself and are confident. And confidence affects everything from performance to mental health to body image and the energy you exude that people find compelling. It doesn't matter if that is coming from positive self talk into a mirror or a spell to "bring out your inner light." And it doesn't matter if your "reminder" that you are awesome is hooked to some music or a scent or something wrapped around your neck that gets in your way, repeatedly nudging those energies to the forefront of your mind.

Now…I'll admit that ten percent that goes towards the woo…I can't explain and have stopped trying. I've had experiences I don't claim to understand—channelled things that VERY clearly were not me and that then made predictions that turned out to be SPOT on accurate, and a number of coincidences so large as to give even my skepticism pause that I'm starting to sound ridiculous. But if explanations that sound like "lightning reflecting off of swamp gas wreathed Venus" help you sleep at night, wonderful. And if my drug addled visions of a story that has been told enough times that it has become sentient—conscious of itself and its purity and it's tellers, draws powers from humans' belief, and can influence humanity helps you sleep at night is what helps you sleep at night, wonderful. Whatever. 

It is in that ten percent that leans towards the "mundane" side that I see big problems among modern practitioners though—problems that trace the lines of the rest of our culture and its proclivity to silence the voices of the powerless. These "masters of transcending human limitations” forget what the rest of a human being is.

Yes, your perception can affect your reality—that's not really even a noteworthy observation these days (the science done on how our brain begins to trick us during hunger, sleep deprivation, the influence of music, or even the ability to solve a math problem that disagreed with one's politics)—but to fundamentally change perceptions in a way that alters our reality for longe than the song with the eighties power chords is on, someone has to CREATE that practice and do the work and it takes time and energy and probably won't work tomorrow. So you do it for yourself and teach if asked. But what you DON'T do is spew it AT others like a cereal box platitude of weaponized toxic positivity. ("If you'd just see this as a good thing….") A gratitude practice isn't going to polyana someone through chronic illness…injury…systematic injustice….or even just a REALLY bad time in their life.

Fuck off with that shit. Let people tell you they're hurting. Hear them without trying to guilt them that their magick ought to be powerful enough to overcome any hardship.

A practitioner who is serious about magick will work to create a world where those things do not limit the range of ALL our potentials, not castigate those who have obstacles to overcome for "bringing down the vibes, man." A true healer knows the world is caustic and has some empathy about that. 

I feel like the live, laugh, love practitioners aren't looking around and noticing that they're starting on third base by being middle class (usually upperly so) and mostly white, and are using their magick and "intentions" to justify silence…and silencING others. In a chilling echo to the lack of empathy we find everywhere in capitalism, they simply wrap it in a magical language "skin" and keep doing what the rest of society is also doing. But the shadows can't be denied in magick. (Actually "ESPECIALLY in magic") And so trying to keep everything positive always is just more of the same social hierarchy crap and "isms" and "phobias" as ever. It's gatekeeping with woo. It's just dressed up in robes and talking about ascending to the fifth circle….or something.

Yes. Another post about that fucking salute.

You know what happens when someone does a Nazi salute who didn't mean to or was just trying to wave or a did a "Roman" salute that got taken for something else? 

They apologize. 

Profusely. 

They fall over themselves trying to set the record straight. They make sure they disavow anyone who is cheering for them and correct anyone trying to excuse them. They take great pains to repudiate the ideology they were accused of representing. They are mortified that something they did landed in ~such~ a harmful way. They go OUT OF THEIR WAY to make sure that all possible ambiguity is removed from the gesture and that everyone knows that's not what they're about.

Now for ten points and control of the board, what has Musk NOT done. Who does Musk support and who supports him? Republicans, conservatives, neonazis, and moderates (echoed by no small number of white liberals) are throwing smoke screens about it not really really being real are BANKING on the fact that can't see into his heart of hearts to "KNOW" what he feels.

But you can judge his actions. You have all you need to know. Before. During. Especially since. The rest of this is just smoke-filled, coffee house crap.

Follow WAW, NWAW, or Chris Brecheen

Interested in following Writing About Writing? Or Chris Brecheen?

If you're trying to follow Writing About Writing (or if you are trying to follow ME as a writer), it might actually be confusing to navigate all the different ways I am online and what goes where.

Writing About Writing is on several social media, but each medium is updated a little bit differently. Some get every post I make, no matter how major or minor. Some media are privy to a cycle of "reruns" where most days I cycle through the popular posts of the past so that new folks can see old posts they may have missed (and old fans can be reminded of treasured classics).

Some social media have different signal-to-noise. Some I update in other capacities. Some are fire and forget. In some, I post my writing that is not "about writing," like the blog NOT Writing About Writing. Other places, more strictly ABOUT writing, pretty much keep it to this blog and it's updates along with macros, puns, and "You should be writing" memes. A lot of people have left Facebook and almost everyone I know has left X (Twitter). 

Here are a few questions I get a lot:

What should you follow if you want to see everything I write? 

You want My Public Facebook Page. Follow it (or friend it if you check out the guidelines below). Though be warned that it can sometimes be like drinking from a fire hose. I will post everything I write, including reruns, but I ALSO post navel gazing, proto-posts, Jack-Handy-caliber deep thoughts, amateur political punditry, social justice thoughts, macros, silliness, and geekery. 

What should you follow if you basically want all the official posts I write, but not a bunch of crap about politics, video games, my day, or social justice?

You will get a higher signal to noise ratio if you follow my Tumblr, but I write about politics, video games, social justice, and sometimes my day, so I'm not really sure you can avoid that if you're interested in me as a writer.

What should you follow if you basically want the Writing About Writing blog, but almost nothing else. 

You want the Writing About Writing Group. TWO posts most days (one new and one rerun). There is one meme (but only one) that is the prior day's best from the page. I almost never post from my other writing, and I almost never post more than one meme.

What should you follow if you basically want memes, puns, articles, and "you should be writing" reminders and don't really care about reading my blog?

Okay, that's cool. No no. It's fine. Really. While I put some aloe on this burn, you want the Writing About Writing page. Lots of memes, macros, puns, and comics and it's easy to scroll past the occasional post from my blog.

What should I do if I want all of these things? All of it! Give me more!!

Follow the Writing About Writing Facebook Page, The Writing About Writing Facebook Group, and my Public Facebook Page. Then go to the following button on the page and set your preferences to "See First." I will warn you that you may see some repeat posts, but this if you want to miss the fewest things I post, this is the way.

Or if you don't like Facebook, follow me on Bluesky and Tumblr. The two together should have pretty much everything I write.

All nearby Mandalorians in unison:
"This is the way"

The "Join this site" button on the left, toward the bottom of this (and every) page. 

Following Writing About Writing through Google's Blogger allows you to assemble a collection of blogs you follow. Most people following the blog this way have their own blog through Blogger, but it's not necessary. (You only actually need a Google account, which many people have through Gmail.) You will be notified when I write a new post.

Pros- Shows all updates (minor and major). Updates in a timely manner.

Cons- No reruns. No posts from any other venues. Blogger usually takes a few hours to get the latest post up.

R.S.S. Feed 

Note: Google has recently discontinued FEEDBURNER, but if you still want an RSS and/or email feed, here is a page of alternatives. 

If you have an RSS reader, you may like to simply be updated by having your RSS feed updated with the text of my latest post. If you click on the Feedburner button AT THE BOTTOM of the page, you can subscribe to Writing About Writing through a number of RSS readers including FeedDemon, Netvibes, My Yahoo, Shrook, NewsFire, RSSOwl and more. 

One of many Feedburner alternatives at the link above.

Pros- Shows all new updates (major and minor). Updates instantly.

Cons- RSS feed does not include reruns (even the Greatest Hits I like to cycle through). No posts from other venues. Many RSS readers are JUST text, so you won't see the images that are part of the posts. Also, if you get a little behind on your feed, catching up feels Sisyphean and knowing the next update is coming feels like the sword of Damocles. (Gotta get my Greek metaphors on.)

Email Notification 

….has been disabled by Blogger.

I'm really sorry. I will keep my eye on a replacement. When I'm making enough to pay all the bills with writing, one of the first orders of business is going to be hiring a web designer to completely overhaul the site and have all the cool things that I can't figure out how to do.

Bluesky

I keep most short things on Bluesky. While I'm not ready to leave Facebook, a lot of my friends ARE, so anything that CAN fit into the 300 character limit, will, and if it can't fit in 300 characters, it'll end up in a post that I LINK to on Bluesky (or I'll post it to Tumblr). This DOES mean that Bluesky is going to see a LOT of my personal posts.

Pros- A glimpse into my private life.

Cons- Who wants to see THAT crap?

Twitter

No

Pros- Peace of mind. Not supporting a Neonazi. 

Cons- Are there really any?

Facebook Page for Writing About Writing 

(That heading is a link)

W.A.W.'s Facebook page is its whole own thing.

In order to build an audience on Facebook, I spend a lot of time posting memes, macros, "you should be writing" reminders, inspirational messages, videos, and whatever thing about writing I find interesting and want to share.

This may seem counterintuitive, but I actually try NOT TO POST TOO MUCH FROM MY BLOG. The audience I've spent years carefully cultivating will not stick around if things get spammy. Most of the FB audience is there for the shenanigans, not the blog cross-posting.

You can increase your chances of seeing posts by setting the page to "see first," but you'll never see everything……because Zucc. FB does something horrible frequently enough that if I could som

Click "See first" to see more. 
But because FB wants page admins paying money
nothing you do will ever get you everything I post.
(You have to visit the page periodically and go through our history for that.)

Pros- Lots of other fun stuff going on. 

Cons- Lots of other stuff going on which. Also the FB algorithm prevents page followers from seeing every post so some W.A.W. posts will get lost. Not a good place to get all the blog updates if you want them. Enjoying anything on FB requires a shower with steel wool and industrial cleanser. Facebook is the Antichrist.

Tumblr 

(The heading is a link)

I joined Tumblr after Facebook's 2016 round of content throttling. Then Tumblr started doing it too and THEN they axed LGBTQIA+ content because of overkill compliance with Fosta/Sesta. These days I'll post all my blog stuff (reruns too) including from the non-writing blog, and a few of my well received memes very similar to my FB group except more memes and I sometimes I share other Tumblrs or something a little social justice-y. 

Pros- Blog posts from all locations. Best meme of the day. 

Cons- Somewhat limited presence on Tumblr. And I share other Tumblr posts about social issues from time to time.

Facebook's Writing About Writing Group

(The heading is a link)

Different from the FB page, the Facebook GROUP will only have the blog posts (usually two a day) and a single macro/meme/infographic that is kind of like "The prior day's best."

Pros- Mostly just blog cross posts. (Reruns and current.) Once-a-day "best of" macro/meme.

Cons- Nothing else.

My Public Facebook Profile

(The heading is a link) 

My Public FB profile is a melange of personal updates, posts about politics and social issues, geekery, things I find about non-monogamy, introversion, and pop culture. But it will also include some "behind-the-scene" thoughts about writing, running a page, and the creative process. (And sometimes complaining about some of the people I run into on the page itself.) If you wish there were more "Social Justice Bard" posts, this is a place where you can read the proto-versions of some of them as well as the ones that never make it to the blog.

You might want to follow for a while and decide IF you want to send me a friend request. I'm definitely not everyone's cup of tea with the geekery and the social justice stuff. 99.9% of my posts are public, so you really wouldn't be missing anything except the ability to comment.

If you don't care for my (very) occasional social issues post on other social media, you will like my profile even less. I write about that stuff almost daily. I can be a bit much for people. I post a lot. 

I have a Commenting Policy for this profile. You should read it before charging in. ESPECIALLY before charging into a contentious post. 

If you do want to "FRIEND" me, send me a PM with your request. (Don't worry, I check my "Message Requests" inbox at least once a day.) That account gets around 100-200 friend requests a week. I reject most of them because I don't know if they're there to try and rent my page or just pick a fight in the comments. So send me a message along with the request.

Pros- See more of "me." Get "behind the scene" updates. See "alpha" versions of posts and thoughts that never quite make it.

Cons- I post a LOT. I am not shy about my liberalism/leftism. 

Instagram

(The heading is a link)

Yes, I even have an Instagram. It gets periodic updates as well as the the occasional selfie (although late stage capitalism demands that I point out my Patreon selfie tier is still the best way to get those). I don't really pay much attention to it since images (or short videos) are not the medium I work in.

Patreon

(The heading is a link)

Though Patreon is less of a social medium, my patrons do get pictures and content through various tiers that are not available to anyone else. Newsletters, early access to posts, and the occasional post about what's going on that my regular readers aren't privy to. 

Others? 

I would love if something better existed than these few (oft problematic) sites. I know there's shit out there like MeWe or Dreamwidth. Most everywhere seems to suffer from two things:

1- Everytime we move, everyone goes somewhere different and some people I never see again.
2-As soon as they get enough people, capitalism corrupts them to be similarly evil, so there's no escape other than to use social media in the most subversive way possible. 

Right now, I am also fettered. For all Facebook's throttling and trying to squeeze blood from my stones (and even restricting my account for no reason and not telling me why), running a page of 1.3 million is what has made it possible for me to be a working writer.

The Bus Doesn't Get You Where You're Going—It Gets You Closer Than You Are Now

The bus doesn't go where we want it to. 

No busses even go along the street where we want to be. We're pissed off that the 34 line has been discontinued, and we know there has been corruption in that decision. Powerful people made sure that the 20 line is the only thing that heads even remotely in that direction because it stops everywhere they want people to be. They say it's because no one wants to go where the 34 goes, but we know a lot of people would take it if it existed. It's really that they don't want people on that street because it would hurt their interests. So we end up on the right end of town but you still have to walk a mile and a half up and over. It sucks. 

But the 117 goes the other way. It puts us on the wrong side of town. If we end up on the 117, we'd have to walk 20 miles just to get back where we were, nevermind make progress towards our destination.

We know working with the bus lines to get the 34 back running won't work. The bus management is corrupt and all about money. We have to generate overwhelming demand. But everyone who wants the 34 running is over at that end of town. You don't want to take the bus at all because it's supporting a corrupt system. The drivers are racist. The stops are exploitative. The bus consumes so much gas that it has to suppress people to keep the price down.

We don't stay where we are and yell at everyone that they are terrible if they don't want the 34, calling them sellouts for taking the bus as far as they can and then making the best of it. We might look askance at people who think the 34 is all we should ever need, but they probably need to be convinced, not treated like enemies. We don't gather up people who want a 34 and complain that there's no 20 and do literally nothing else—that won't change a thing. And we don't wait for a miracle of some minivan to pull up that'll happen to take us just exactly where we want to go--it's not coming; it's NEVER coming. We could start walking from HERE in protest, but it's a lot further, and in this metaphor, we have to take one bus, so if we don't get on the 20, someone's going to PUT US on the 117, and then we'll have to walk 20 miles just to get back to where we started and then further still.

So we take the bus as far as it'll take us and when it drops us off we walk. Or we crawl. Or we show the determination to get where the 34 goes that we claim we had from the beginning. But whatever we do, we roll up our sleeves and do the work from as close as the deeply flawed system that we've GOT will get us to where we want to go. And we work for a world where the busses go further. And maybe there's even a 34 line again. 

I hope you vote. If you don't, I'm not going to agree with you, but at this point, I'll assume you have your reasons that are deeply considered. But I hope you do.

Even if you vote in local or state elections that will affect your lives VERY directly. Even if you hold your nose and vote against the brand of naked overt fascism Trump has promised to bring us. Even if you spend the other 364 days a year deeply involved in parallel infrastructure and leftist anarchy (and you're just doing so to make everything you're trying to achieve a little easier). Even if you're doing it because there's one party that hasn't all but promised to hurt LGBTQ+ folks, immigrants, and even BIPOC who step out of line. Even if it's because only one party will even talk about easing off rampant militarism and mass incarcerations. 

Even if it's just so you don't lose your health care.

Even if you're like me, and the "bus" only gets you vaguely in the direction you want to go on a few issues. 

Because I know what happens if you don't vote. And I would love to tell you it's "nothing." But it isn't nothing. Someone else will decide for you who will govern you. It's a nightmare slide of SCOTUS rulings and overton window that we've been living. And it might not get better, but it can ALWAYS get worse.

Advice So Many Nonmonogamous (mostly) Dudes Need

There's a polyamory group on Facebook that I'm in. It's about half memes and half requests for advice. I like about 5% of its posts asking for advice or help. They are interesting questions or serious introspection about what tools would be best to navigate some of the complexities that come up around nonmonogamy in a monogamous society. (Things like how to handle holidays when your family doesn't understand, or what tools are particularly useful when someone's going through bananapants new-relationship-energy and you feel like the old shoe.) The other 95% are posts by one in a couple who have recently opened up (we call them "polywogs"), usually in ways that are ethically….let's say inexperienced for the benefit of the doubt…although "questionable" might be more accurate. These posts (regardless of which member of the couple is asking") retread the same handful of questions over and over and over again. I wish I could blanket these posts with the following advice: 

• Date separately. If you've recently opened up, do this deliberately and for a long time before you try to date as a couple. Trying to date the same person when you haven't even figured out nonmonogamy yourself is less ethical than you might think. It takes a lot of self-awareness and no-small-amount of experience to navigate a world that inculturates us into monogamy. Trying to onboard another person into a relationship that isn't absolutely nailing it with communication, open honesty, and each individual's introspection is a recipe for disaster and is going to hurt at least one person you care about.
• Hey, this is mostly for the dudes. Okay, so what if you ARE dating separately. First of all, good on you! But also….THERE IS NO DATING APP THAT IS GOING TO DO THE WORK FOR DUDES. They won't sign up and just….get attention. Femme-read folks tend to get too much attention. WAY too much—the vast majority of it crapfully crappier than the first half dozen Strongbad Emails. (Although they generally have to be considered conventionally attractive to really have their inbox explode.)  Theirs is the curse of going through all the dross. Dudes get crickets. And tumbleweeds. And the old prospector sitting on the porch of a burnt out husk of a building who slowly lights a pipe and says "ain't no one been here in….oh, I'd say…fifty years." Theirs is the curse of silence. A moment's thought about how our culture does courtship, who has power, and who exposes themselves to violence every time they spend time with an unknown dude should make it obvious why this is. But everyone is cursed to struggle for genuine connection, and no app is going to be as easy as filling out the information and letting the sweet, sweet interest just roll in. That's not how it works. Ever.
• Okay, so you decided not to date separately. I warned you in my best "Beware the groove" voice, but here we are. You're looking to date together. And because of a number of factors almost always including the dude's fantasies and the dude's insecurities, you're looking to date a bisexual woman with your partner. Yes, what you're doing is unicorn hunting. No, it's not a problem if everyone gives enthusiastic, informed consent—and might not even technically be unicorn "hunting" per se. (Yakov Smirnoff voice: "In enthusiastic Russia, unicorn hunts YOU!") But HAVE they given informed, enthusiastic consent? Or are you missing one or both of those ingredients? Usually the "informed" part, because this person is some polywog who doesn't understand what couples' privilege looks like, how it will affect them when things come crashing down, and how to set up healthy boundaries around it. They have NO IDEA what they're about to get into. And that's not informed. That's predatory—on your part. Or maybe it isn't actually enthusiastic. Maybe someone isn't sure. Or maybe they're along for the ride because they want to gain (or don't want to lose) access to only ONE of you. Now you've created a situation in which it is only a matter of time before you detonate—not very ethical of the two of you.
• And for fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu…(~deep breath~) uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck's sake, the above doesn't even consider power differentials. If someone is moving in because they're homeless, joining a "family" because they're being financially pinioned, don't feel like they can say no to this relationship without losing something, are being socially manipulated, are being pressured, badgered, or guilted, are obliged by some kind of arrangement (that isn't explicitly sex for money—got nothing against sex work here!) or otherwise are being cajoled into this dynamic, that is absolutely fucking deplorable and you need to stop interacting with anyone. For any reason. (Except maybe therapy.) Until/unless you knock that shit off. 
• If you really care about this stuff like ethics and consent and open, honest communication, and preserving this relationship that you claim to value, you should be assimilating the advice of almost everyone who came before you, and having a lot of good conversations. You should NOT be pretending that the entire community of veterans just collectively woke up and decided to make up how problematic these dynamics can be in order to harsh your very entitled squee. It is INCREDIBLY specious of you to blow off as "kinshamers" literally entire communities who have done—or seen done—this very thing over and over and over and over (and over and over) and watched it fail spectacularly in the same way every time.  It WILL. be. harmful. to everyone involved. And if you don't blow up every vestige of all four relationships*, one of the three of you will very likely end up "left" by the other two and have to mend a broken heart. Then, if you haven't sworn off nonmonogamy altogether you will be tomorrow's eye-roller trying to convince the next generation of unicorn hunters that this is an advanced move for a polywog, and they are not somehow special.
• I love group sex. I can't say enough good things about it. It's about as much fun as you can have without breaking the law—except in the states where it IS breaking the law and there it's tied with some….uh….OTHER stuff that…I absolutely never do. And I'm including Disney parks in that assessment. But you can bang it out (even regularly) in an ethical way that doesn't involve the dynamics of "trying to find a third" and all the deeply problematic tropes that this type of search so, so, SO often falls into. 
• Is that third you're looking for an independent person? Do they get to date separately from the two of you? Do they get to bang either one of you while the other isn't there? Are they allowed to not like threesomes that much? Can they keep their own living arrangements? Will they be encouraged to have their own activities, interests, income, and life outside of your relationship? If you've answered no to ANY of these questions, this isn't ethical, and someone's going to get hurt. Does one of you have veto if it doesn't work—the ability to slam the breaks on the whole thing and just go back to monogamy—dumping the third? Will you make big financial and life decisions without them like when to have kids or buy property? Are you going to keep right on telling family and friends and coworkers that you're a couple and keep them as your dirty little secret? If you've answered yes to ANY of these questions, someone's going to get hurt. I'm not saying you can't stay "in the closet" strategically, but this person is going to exist outside of your bedroom and it isn't fair to them to act like they don't.
• Another one mostly for the dudes. As a reformed whiner about how hard it is to meet femme-read folks, even in non-monogamous circles, please let me assure you that you won't whine your way into anyone's DMs. You. Will. Not. EVER. Do This. Self confidence is hot and this is whatever the opposite of that is. They don't owe you attention. They don't owe you a chance. They don't owe you a date, sex….anything. I hear your complaints that some people are better at this. Some are hotter. Some are suaver. Some have the skibbidy Ohio rizz, They are so sigma. You're right. They are. They do. But don't be L-rizz about it. There will ALWAYS be someone to compare yourself to unfavorably. If only you were a blistering hot extrovert, right? If only you could work a room. If only you had a six pack and chiseled pecs. Maybe, but whatever. Stop whining—I absolutely promise you up one side and down the other that your lack of confidence is literally 90% of your problem. The whining isn't doing you ANY favors. I'm an introvert too. I'm cute but I'm not some unfathomable smoke show. I don't get messages on dating apps except to be immediately benched. I have to meet people. I have to talk to people. I have to form relationships, and then ONCE in a while….cute people tell me that I'm starting to smell like a legit snack. 
• Dudes need to go do shit they enjoy and just…..meet people. They need to stop thinking there is some door in the nonmonogamous world they can walk through…some app they can download…some group they can be a part of…some party…some place…SOMEWHERE where they don't need to put themselves out there and meet people and to get to know their potential sex partners. Somewhere where women and femme-read folks will just walk up to them and say, "I am for you James Smith," without them ever having to be interesting or charming or funny or just…fucking outrageously hot or SOMETHING. And asking women to do the propositioning or ask "where should I go to meet…" isn't really going to change this answer. 
• Date separately. Seriously. Either date separately, go be swingers (got nothing against that if it's your jam), or be ready for everything to fall apart after a couple of encounters. Group sex is fun. (No, seriously, it's a LOT of fun.) Cruise together. Invite the people you're dating separately to join both of you once in a while. Have fun with it. But fuck, listen to me when I promise you to infinity and beyond that group RELATIONSHIP dynamics are basically impossible to try to engineer intentionally with such a specific result in mind. Add one person to a dyad and you've added THREE additional relationship dynamics. If you can't date separately, you're definitely not ready for that.
• *That's right. A triad has four relationships. Each person has their own unique dynamic with each of the other two, and the three of you have a relationship as a trio that has its own dynamic. Two of you might be hot and heavy sexually while the other two talk for hours and the three of you may enjoy neither of those things but love watching Netflix together. They're EACH their own relationship and you can't force ONE relationship to be what you want it to be—never mind four. Each of those relationships needs its own emotional availability, nurturing, and support for this to work. No relationship involving more than one person is going to have every member liking every other member equally. Ever. EVER. If someone is going to be insecure about that when it happens (and it will), the entire thing is going to explode. Every time. Always.
• If you and your partner have intentional hierarchy with veto, you have to understand that it will get used EXACTLY when you don't want it to the most. Always. THE MOST. Your enthusiasm for what is happening is going to be a threat, and if they have the power to stop it in its tracks, they will—even just to know you WOULD stop if they demanded it.
• Date separately. You'll know when you're ready when something organic starts kind of just…happening, and trust me that it'll STILL be incredibly difficult to navigate all those emotions and relationships and logistics. But when you're first starting…just…. Okay, you know those video games that "let" you go anywhere, but there are clearly ways that are WAY too hard until you've leveled up and have the gyro cannon powered over 9000? This is like that. Yeah you can, but…like…I promise you shouldn't. Pinkie swear. 
• The reason so many of the poly vets avoid folks with hierarchy and veto is not because every single independent polyam community has been struck by cultish groupthink…somehow simultaneously…and all the same way. It's because we've had our fucking hearts broken by people who we weren't in relationships with and didn't consent to give control over our relationships to. If some jealous spouse is controlling when, what, where, and even IF we can have a relationship, we're going to be super extra wary and vigilant. You fall in love and their partner gets insecure and vetos you…that's a stepped-on-Lego to the heart that you don't want to go repeating. 
• So you're dating (hopefully separately) but now you have….rules. When and where and how and who and how often and… and…and….  Okay fine. Polywogs tend to start with a lot of "Thou shalt not…"s and evolve into talking about what's coming up in their feelings and what they need or want (as a positive request) later on. But hear me on this: One-penis policies are gross. At the very very very least, they are assuming sex with a penis is somehow "real," and two people with vulvas getting together is not going to be a threat to that penis-haver or (worse) is there for some dude's enjoyment. That's some unmitigated heteronormative crap. And that's the BEST-CASE scenario. When you actually unpack that shit, you're probably going to find homophobia and transantagonism driving the fear of "certain plumbing" before someone has even finished the first couple of sentences doing their best diplomatic effort to explain why the OPP is not wildly problematic.
• Okay, so you're dating. And she's only "allowed" to date other women, but says that's okay because it's all she wants. Is she REALLY not into other guys or is this relationship at a resentment "simmer" already? Because that's going to go okay until it doesn't. Look, there are a few reasons the guy she opened up with might be the only dude in her life, but none of them is likely to be that she just magically desires ONLY the relationship structure that he finds least threatening. (If she's really mostly gay, for example, but that's likely to be obvious and not about what makes him insecure.) In twenty-five years, what I've found far more likely is that the guy in this couple is just being controlling and misogynist in a way that does not belong in ETHICAL non-monogamy. Either his behavior when she dates dudes is SOFA KING awful that it's simply not worth it (gross), or they explicitly have some rule about her dating other dudes (extra gross), which if anyone gave a moment's thought, they would realize this couple wouldn't actually need (as a "rule") if this was what everyone enthusiastically wanted anyway. I've seen too many weak smiles well away from the tender egos of husbands and boyfriends (along with the confessions of "well, that's all he can handle right now, so I just have to deal with it") not to be very, VERY skeptical. 
• Watching sapphic relationships blow up heterosexual relationships just as fast (or often faster) than their dude counterparts, or watching women fall for guys even though they’re not "supposed" to want such a thing (~or~ the PARTICULARLY telling case where the relationship involves someone trans who has a penis [oh noes!], and then all kinds of problematic shit hits overdrive where penises are magical and vulvas aren’t attached to “real” relationships)….  if there is one thing I have learned, it is that when a heteronormative dyad tries to convince everyone that their one-penis policy is on the up and up by swearing that everyone is enthusiastically consenting, somebody is—and usually two somebodies are— not being fully honest. That shit has some real, "I'm GLAD you wished Pa into the cornfield" vibes. 
• Have I mentioned date separately?
• Dudes, if you opened up a monogamous, heterosexual dyad  for all the hot sex in the world you were sure you'd be getting just the MINUTE the ink dried, and now she's off having hot dates with people she cares about, and you can't handle it, so you shut the whole thing down, understand that you are about to create a swirling vortex spew of your entitlement and her resentment, and that every fourth or fifth damn post in ANY polyamory group is going to be about a person JUST. LIKE. YOU.
• Fucking date separately. 

The Case of the Eloquent Bigot

Someone can come up with a beautiful, elegant, well-thought rationale for their bigotry that insists that all the moving parts are actually adjacent to the prejudice itself and that there is no camouflaged intolerance behind the pulsing heart of their impetus, but at the end of the day the same people who are hurt by outright, overt, naked bigotry will be the ones crying that "this hurts us," and the bigot-writer's ardent supporters will be ones slipping up and saying aloud the part they're actually probably just DYING to say. 

I'm a professional writer, and though there's a book around here somewhere that I'm going to get back to, I pay the bills blogging. I make money trying to convince people of things. I know how to make a case for something. How to emphasize this point and avoid that one. I know how to imagine how something is going to land and how to work around the rhetorical points that make me look bad. I know how to lean in on the spin and give something a coat of paint and a polish. 

We've all laughed (bitterly) when Trump said, "I don't have a racist bone in my body." We've all seen the person who claims their racism is about states' rights or that anti-choice legislation is somehow actually about 35th week pregnancy even though it targets everything after the six. We've all seen the argument that makes some case about child molestation when they really are just being transphobic bigots or claiming that sexual assault is the issue when it's not trans people sexually assaulting folks. We know that study after study after study says that people understand that anti-sex-work laws can be crafted to be harder on trafficking and exploitation, but what people really want is a reason that plays a little better at parties than for them to just come out as openly anti-sex worker.

Believe me when I tell you that a professional writer with time to revise can obfuscate their bigotry quite well. I say this as a writer. I say this as a reader. I say this as a lifetime activist who has read more elevated and genteel versions of "I'm not racist, but…" than I want to remember. These writers are the ambassadors for the version of the arguments that most people know JUUUUUUUST enough not to utter in mixed company.

So when you read some writer's manifesto, just keep that in mind. One of literally the best and brightest writing minds on the planet might using their host of skills to make sure that you don't see what's going on behind the curtain. They want you to focus on the sleight of language that will never come out and say it. But you can watch the people reacting—the people in the groups that are affected. (The ones they are assuring you they would never stand against.) You can just ask these people, you know. You don't have to assume they're okay with something just because you read something with formal diction. You can just look and see that they are hurt. (Though this may require actually doing so and not just assuming.) And while most people know that it's better to check with BIPOC rather than Trump to find out if Trump is a racist, all those big vocabulary words sometimes mean people forget that the same rules apply to everyone. White people don't get to decide who's racist—no matter how good at writing they are. 

You can also watch the allies—the people who have the writer's back. The people crowding in, in throngs and mobs and hordes. The ones who aren't quite so good at the misdirection and who slip up (often) and say the quiet part out loud. The comment sections and the conversations they think are just "their people" that begin to fill with the real sentiments. Glance at who is on the writer's side and it's piss easy to tell if maybe their diplomacy is covering up the truth.

Suddenly it will be crystal clear that all the fifty-cent words in the world won't change the fact that a marginalized group is being harmed, and the writer is doing it. 

They just used more paragraphs.