On walking the Walk

Tomorrow (or today - Sunday, June 6, 2010 - depending when you're reading this) is the 2010 World Partnership Walk in Montreal. Yes, we have finally reached this long discussed date.
Rain or shine, we will be taking steps towards a better world at the Quays of the Old Port of Montreal (between Jacques Cartier Quay and King Edward Quay) starting at 10:30AM. You can't miss it. We've got a bunch of big white tents set up and loads of glorious orange and blue banners decorating the site. Our start/finish line arch is epic. Oh, and TV people? We've got a jib.

"So... wait. What's the World Partnership Walk again?" It's Canada's largest annual event to fight global poverty by raising awareness and funds for the cause. It takes place in 10 cities across the country, including Montreal! Over 70,000 participants walk the Walk and donate directly to programmes that help people help themselves in fields like education, health, sanitation, strengthening of civil society, rural development, the environment and gender issues.

"Wait, what? What do you mean, 'directly'?" I mean directly! 100% of the funds raised through the World Partnership Walk go directly to international development initiatives coordinated by Aga Khan Foundation Canada.

"Aga Khan... isn't he that religious dude?" Yes, he's "that religious dude", aka the spiritual leader of the Ismaili Muslim community and a world renown philanthropist. Most importantly, it's thanks to his private funds that 100% of your donations can go to AKFC's development programmes. And by the way, AKFC is a non-denominational, not-for-profit, registered Canadian charity. Look them up: 10007 2586 RR0001.

"Okay, so my money helps everybody?" That's right! The Foundation's approach is to go into some of the poorest communities in Asia and Africa, ask them what they need, and then give them access to training, resources and often, Canadian expertise, so they can take full ownership of the projects they are implementing. By supporting the Foundation, you are empowering some of the poorest people in the world to take charge of their own lives and change their futures, immediately improving their quality of life and livelihoods. Oh, and your donation helps leverage additional funding from partners like CIDA or USAID.

"So, why me?" Everyone needs to come up with their own answers, but you can't deny that global poverty is one of the most pressing issues of our time. As Canadians (and Americans and anyone else who has the necessary financial and intellectual capacity), it is our duty to help those in need. We've proved time and time again that we believe in the potential of the developing world. Why not encourage them by giving them the proper tools they need to carry their future in their own hands? It works. I've seen it with my own eyes.

"Why do you Walk?" I walk because I have hope for a better world. One where the world heals itself through understanding, care, and love. One where people who can, help those who can't. One where there is trust in humanity, trust in our capacity, and trust in the power of a dream. I walk because I've seen the smiles of the faces of those we've helped in the past and the hope in the eyes of those we have yet to reach. I walk because I care. I walk because I can. I walk because it's the right thing to do.

Now let me turn the tables over to you. Why do you walk? Show me when you come out to the 2010 World Partnership Walk at the Quays of the Old Port tomorrow - Sunday, June 6 - and walk the Walk. If you can't show up, please donate now - I'm $270 away from my 2K goal! - and know that you've taken steps to make the world a better place. The entertainment lineup is pretty good too ;)

It is time for you to take the lead in changing the world. As Ghandi said... “You may never know what results come of your action, but if you do nothing there will be no result.”

Oh, and "Be the change you want to see in the world."

To contribute to my 2010 World Partnership Walk in Montreal fundraising efforts in the fight against global poverty, please click here. 100% of your donation will go directly to helping people help themselves in some of the poorest countries in the world.
PS: Thank you.

On Nodar Kumaritashvili

As you have no doubt heard by now, there was a tragic accident at Men's Singles Luge training at the Whistler Sliding Centre on Friday.

21-year old Georgian athlete Nodar Kumaritashvili slid off his sled and off the track, hitting a solid post. When it happened, I was in the Mixed Zone. I didn't not personally see the incident, but I heard a disturbance. The reporters who were watching the live footage on the big screen exclaimed in surprise and distress.

Hours after it was all over, after the Opening Ceremonies, after a comforting dinner with some of my co-workers and lighting some candles at the Olympic rings in Whistler Village, I came home and turned on the TV. It was still all over the news. As well as a soldier's death in Afghanistan and a young woman's death in Ontario. It was a tough night for Canada.

I also posted a few stories on the incident. One on juggling being a reporter and being a human being. One on the balance between reporting the news and exploiting someone's death.

The latter got a lot of comments on my Facebook page, and most people agreed that the footage of the crash leading to Nodar's death should not have been showed. However, they disagreed on the degree to which the death should have been reported. I would like to share the comment I wrote in response to theirs.

It is worth noting that this was my third comment on the story. The first explained how the Olympic Broadcast Service cut the feed of the crash as soon as it happened, but CTV, ABC and other networks aired the full crash footage. CTV stopped airing the actual crash once it became clear that Nodar had passed away. ABC not only showed the full crash, they also aired a picture of his bloody face, receiving CPR before being put in the ambulance.

My second comment referred to the idea that people "need to know" and the media being the ones to deliver that information to keep people informed, though I didn't agree with airing the full footage and said that if someone was truly compelled to watch it, they could be pointed to it online.

Commentators on the post talked about conscience, the morbid interest we have in death - something we can't understand, on ratings and money, on having limits and respect and not airing something if you're "struggling" with the decision, on family and friends having to see it over and over again, and on how the incident airing live could not have been prevented but networks would never air the footage of someone being shot to death.

Without further ado, here is my long-winded response to all these concerns and comments. It is my form of therapy and sharing it with you will make it easier for me to deal with this horrific incident, put it behind me, and enjoy the rest of the Olympic Games.

There was no way of knowing what would happen live, so that's not up for discussion. I personally don't think that it should have aired completely, but if it hadn't, I and other reporters who are covering the story would have seen it and wouldn't have been able to understand what happened.
That doesn't mean that I would have put it on a broadcast. Like I said, I would have aired up until the sled started slipping, and cut it there.

An article doesn't work for TV, unfortunately, and having an anchor on cam for over a minute describing the incident doesn't work either.

There are rules in Canada - and journalistic ethics - that prevent the showing of someone's death on TV and it should have stayed that way. If there was any indication at all that Nodar had passed away (which there was - one reporter I talked to who saw the crash live (on the venue screen) said right away that he thought Nodar might be dead), then you shouldn't show the moment of death. It's a lack of respect, it's unnecessary, and it's gruesome.

Ratings shouldn't matter in this case. What if his family and/or friends had been watching and this was how they heard/learned about the death?

Similarly, nothing serious should have been tweeted/FB about the incident until the family was notified and the IOC confirmed the death. Reporting that there was a major crash is one thing. Putting it out there that he's dead when there hasn't been a confirmation is unacceptable.

Yes, journos want to get the story and get it first, but at some point, humanity has to step in. Just as there are embargo rules on deaths in military zones, there should be embargo rules applied to ALL deaths.

As for having it online, I don't think it should be advertised, but human beings can't help but be curious and want to see it for themselves to believe it, even if the footage is behind a gazillion disclaimers - people tend to ignore those. In this case, competition and ratings did take over, but before any networks put the OBS footage online, some people had apparently already put it on YouTube. That's gross and it pisses me off.

I was there, I heard the scrapping of the sled and the initial exclamation from those who saw it happen. I felt the moment of shock, when we were all frozen in our understanding and realization of what had and may have happened. Then, someone sprung into action and decided to head down to the crash site. By then, Nodar was already being moved into the ambulance. Some reporters saw more than I did, and photographers captured some gruesome images. I don't blame them, that's human curiosity. You do want comes natural, and taking the shot is what photographers do naturally.

I saw Nodar's feet as he was put into the ambulance. That was enough for me. When I saw the crash footage later, and how still Nodar had been, there was no doubt in my mind that he died instantly. The networks should have come to the same realization and decided NOT to air the footage.

Nodar Kumaritashvili, rest in peace. Here's a prayer for your soul and the quick healing of all our hearts. May we remember only the positives from your life and may your legacy make your favourite sport safer for all. I hope you left this world full of joy and the thrill of doing what you like the most, not fear or desperation.

My condolences to the whole Olympic family.

On Falling in Love

Why do we fall in love?

Boy or girl, we are naturally programmed to seek out that fairytale ending, our "happily ever after". More often than not, it ends in disaster and pain, but we keep trying, hoping we'll find "the one" some day.

When you meet someone you think you would like to date, do you get excited? Don't deny it... Being with that person makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside. You can't help but wonder how you would be together, if the search is finally over, if this is it, the moment you fall in love for the last time, "the one". Unless, of course, it's a purely physical attraction and those are your intentions from the start. But disregarding that option, if you're looking for a relationship, you might wonder about the future.

For some, these initial long-term thoughts are a test. Do I see myself with this person? Could we still have fun hanging out after the initial spark is gone? Will we be holding hands as we grow old?

It might sound sappy, but it's true. We all do it. It's an internal response system that is meant to help you reject the insufficient options so you don't waste your time. It's not just psychological, in fact, it's more likely biological. After all, male or female, the clock is ticking. There's a sense of urgency to finally finding the security of life-long company, whether you're an introvert or an extrovert, independent or co-dependent, whether you've already built a life for yourself or are just laying down the foundations for your future.

We long for the company of a warm body on a cold winter night, for snuggles by the fireplace and a hand to hold as you walk through the park, someone to share ice cream with on a hot summer's day, someone to comfort you when you're mad or sad and tell you that it's going to be alright. We cannot help but look for it, though we know that it's only when we stop searching that we truly open ourselves up to love, and to being loved.

Why this compulsion that so often leads us in the wrong direction? There is nothing positive about settling for a relationship that is stagnant and prevents you from growing. It's a waste of time and yet we do it anyway. Why do people so often stay in abusive relationships? We convince ourselves that it's not so bad, that our partner doesn't really have that many faults, that he/she doesn't really mean to hurt us, and that maybe, just maybe, we could be a little more patient, give a little bit more, and then, it just might work.

Human beings are lazy, yes, but we don't like to give up. Nobody likes to feel like a failure. We have a hard time admitting that it's just not working. That's why break-ups are so hard, for both sides. No matter how much or how little you've invested in the relationship, by breaking up, you're admitting that you were wrong, it was a waste of time and, more importantly, that your search isn't over. The dreams go out the window when you hear the words: "I'm sorry, you're not the one." And every time, you grieve, as if it was. In your mind, you had already committed your heart and soul. You had already fallen in love. And now, you've lost it all: what you had, what you could have had, what you thought you had. Time to start from scratch, rev up your engine, folks, because the harsh dispiriting search is back on.

It's why we have rebounds. And relapses.

We just cannot fathom being alone, not having someone to share special moments with, not having someone to grow old with, not having someone to die with.

We are afraid of being alone, no matter how much we enjoy it. We'd like to have our alone time during the day but come home to a warm, occupied bed. We want to have it all.

And that's why relationships fail. Because we're trying too hard to convince ourselves that it's the right match. Because we don't want to keep searching, because that's too hard, on the heart, on the mind, on the body... Because we'd rather have the knowledge that things aren't perfect but at least we've got someone to call. Because we'd rather have something than nothing at all.

We fall in love, right or wrong, whether we want to or not, because we need to. Because the very definition of being human is to seek out comfort and acceptance and love. Because it's a biological longing to procreate and to leave something of yourself behind when you go. Even though it means more tears than smiles, more heartaches and crying, more desperation and more pain, we keep trying to fall in love, keep hoping this is "the one", keep searching for our fairytale ending, our "happily ever after".

Why do we fall in love? Because we don't have a choice.

Losing the Right to Play

Those of you who read my blog regularly know that I'm kinda into sports. If you've payed attention, you also know I hope for nothing but the best for the world, and so, support many good-doing initiatives.

One of my favourite charities, understandably, is Right to Play. Sound familiar? Zdeno Chara just raised $24,000 dollars for the organization by winning the Hardest Shot competition at the 2009 NHL All Star Game this past weekend in Montreal. Some of your other favourite athletes might have mentioned it in an interview at some point.

RTP combines education with fun by helping children learn through sport. Their aim, as per their website, is "creating a healthier and safer world for children through the power of sport and play." Now who wouldn't love that?

Apparently, the International Olympic Committee doesn't think that's good enough anymore. Since 2000, RTP has been allowed access into the Althlete's Village at Olympic Games to speak to the athletes and raise awareness for the cause - hoping to engage them into becoming Right to Play Ambassadors. These ambassadors help spread the word about RTP and its goals, via conferences, fundraising, and trips to Third World countries (that are occasionally covered by various media partners).

Since the IOC decided not to renew it's Memorandum of Understanding with Right to Play, the charity finds itself lacking a primary means of recruitment and fundraising. This is a huge blow, a gazillion steps back from all the progress it has accomplished in the past few years. Where in 2004 nearly no one was aware of its existence, RTP is now highly respected and recognized around the world as an organization of value, thanks to Olympic athletes like Clara Hughes, Chantal Petitclerc, Kyle Shewfelt, Adam Van Koeverden, Donovan Bailey, Beckie Scott, Hayley Wickenheiser, Catriona Le May Doan, so many more...

The list is endless - and that's just from the Canadian website. Whole sports teams and leagues, as well as corporations, have officially partnered with Right to Play.

The problem, according to this article published by the Lethbridge Herald, is that the IOC wants to focus on its own similar programs. It still supports Right to Play's activities though. Isn't that's sweet?

Apparently, the whole controversy boils down to, what else? Money! It's a sponsorship issue.

Gary Mason of the Globe and Mail writes that when the Vancouver Organizing Committee learned that RTP had managed to sign a major sponsorship deal with Mitsubishi Motor Sales - which, if you're keeping track, is a major competitor to Vancouver Olympics' major sponsor General Motors - VANOC and GM were "worried that Mitsubishi was going to use its sponsorship with Right to Play as a way of getting Olympic exposure."

A deal of sorts was struck between VANOC and Right to Play, whereas Mitsubishi's name wouldn't appear on promotional material distributed during the Games or on the RTP website during that two week period. But somehow, the IOC got involved and the final decision was a resounding "NO!"

There's no denying that this charity is legit and that it does accomplish good. In fact, its aims are truly allied with the IOC's, whose website says one of the goals of the Olympic movement is to "contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport practised without discrimination of any kind."

Wouldn't that goal be easier accomplished by associating with an organization like Right to Play? I think so.

However, complaining and trying to raise awareness about how wrong this brusque denial really is will not help Right to Play promote its message worldwide. Instead, as regular citizens of the world, all we can do is join the movement and hope for the best.

Help make the world a better place through Right to Play, click here to donate one time or once a month, whatever your budget can handle.

And don't forget! A donation makes a great gift!

Election Day

If you live in Canada and haven't noticed yet, we've got an election happening on this side of the border too. Sure, we don't have charismatic, groundbreaking candidates like Barack Obama or VP wannabees that light up screens and fire up debates like Sarah Palin, but it's an important event nonetheless.

Faced with choosing from the usual parties - Liberals, Conservatives - we're lucky to have strong contenders in the NDP this time around. And thanks to a poor political decision by the so-called main parties to dismiss Green leader Elizabeth May, our most environmentally conscious party is also attracting some attention - though they probably won't win any seats. And the Bloc, is, as always, present, but barely.

To me, this campaign has been a fight on several levels. Not only did Stephen Harper, Stephane Dion, Jack Layton, Gilles Duceppe and Elizabeth May have to battle each other on the silver screen and on the streets, they also had to fight for the attention of Canadian citizens. While this is always the case - Canadians do vote, but tend to have a defeatist attitude as to the importance of their choice - this campaign was especially tough due to the stiff competition south (and north west) of the border.

In fact, I'd say most Canadians are more concerned about the American elections than the Canadian ones. They care more about the issues, candidates and platforms in the US of A than those in their own backyards. Indeed, CBC did a fun piece asking students who they were voting for, and most said they would vote for Obama (or McCain, in rare occurrences). Most of them didn't even consider that a reporter from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would be referring to the Canadian elections. A large portion of respondents couldn't name our country's Prime Minister, let alone the leaders of our main political parties. Not to mention that many weren't even aware that we were having elections of our own.

Now that's freaky! How can we trust others to elect the right leaders to promote the causes that matter to us as individuals and as a country when most of the population don't know these people exist... and couldn't care less?

Yes, I agree that what happens in the USA is important to Canada, and it is on many levels - political, economical, environmental, geographical, military-wise and trade-wise... But when a Canadian chooses to watch a debate between US Vice Presidential candidates over the one and only English-language Canadian leaders debate, how can you not be a little shell shocked?

I mean, sure, there are replays and extracts and loads of analysis - but you'll get the same for the less-relevant-to-you USA VP debate. Just tune in to CNN Headline News any time of day and you'll get your fix. Browse the Internet, watch the morning shows or daytime talk shows. Or late night comedy shows, for that matter. You'll be caught up in no time.

But in Canada, where coverage is not as extensive due to more limited resources - and lets not kid ourselves, limited interest - how can you not watch the debate live? The way the leaders interact, the tone of their voices, when they choose to get angry and when they choose to remain calm... That says a lot about them as people, as party leaders, as politicians, and as potential leaders of our country. Of YOUR country. How can YOU not take that seriously?

I bet that in most news-watching households in Canada, the US election is more prominently featured as dinner-time programming then our Canadian equivalent. I know this to be true in my area, at least. Sure, the Canadian election gets its air time as well... but as soon as we've got the latest update, it's time to click back to analysis of Obama, McCain, Biden or Palin's latest speech. Every day, 24/7.

Even today, on election day, most people are still thinking about whether or not they'll vote. I can't say I've decided who I'm going to vote for, but I'm most definitely going to get my lazy butt out of my pyjamas and walk to my polling station to mark my ballot. Because it's important for me to have a say, even if I don't think my voice will change anything. Especially in a riding like mine, which could be considered an automatic seat for one of the main parties. Still, if I don't vote, then I can't complain about the results, can I?

Did you know that political parties actually get cash for every vote in their favour? So whether or not you can change anything in the short run, you do have a direct impact on your favourite party's future influence and activities.

What if you can't put your faith in a certain leader? Then vote for the platform that seems most deserving to you (do your research thanks to this great tool, courtesy of CBC).

Even that option can be tough when you don't agree with a party's stance on all the issues, but as always, politics, and any kind of democratic system, really, is about picking the lesser of two evils. Think back to your class president elections in high school. It's the same deal, but on a bigger scale. And even if you didn't care who would lead your class to greatness back then, chances are you cast your vote anyway so you wouldn't feel left out. Just to go through the motions.

So why not here, why not now, when your voice is so much more important?

You might not concern yourself with the outcome of the elections, or maybe you really, truly believe that no one party or leader fits the bill. Then spoil your ballot. Spoil your ballot to make it count. Did you know that if enough people spoil their ballots - and in doing so declare that none of the choices are suitable - the results in that riding can be refused? We'd get another chance to have our say - and hopefully, our little rebellion would cause the parties to change their stance or offer better alternatives.

No matter how you see it, voting is not just a right. It's a responsibility. By not voting, you're letting down your neighbours and your riding, your fellow citizens across Canada, the populations in countries around the world that depend on Canada for food, aid, funding and development, the scientist and artists here at home who also need funding for research or to work... Or simply to survive...

By not voting, you're not only letting everyone else down, you're also letting yourself down.

And how, may I ask, can you live with that?

Please. Go vote today. It's your only chance to have a say, on a small or big scale. Embrace your Canadian citizenship. And don't forget... if you don't vote, you can't complain!

Find your polling station - and register to vote on location! - at www.electionscanada.ca.

Sex, Life, Love and the Pursuit of Happiness

Let me just preface this by saying that my views on love are very different from most people's. I'm not suggesting that my opinions are correct and that everyone should think like me. I understand that love is a very personal subject, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, whatever that may be. There is no right and wrong on love, just different perceptions of it. Again, I'm not judging, just thinking.

This is the fourth and final post in an exploration on love in the world of today. The first part can be found here, part 2 is here, and part 3, here.

Is sex only meant to be shared between two partners who are very much in love? That's what all our social and ethical guides seem to tell us. And yet, there is so much more to sex than intercourse between one man and one woman.

Lets just quickly take a look at some options. Picture yourself in grade school - math class. You're working on groups and trying to find how many combinations are possible.

Man and woman vs woman and woman vs man and man, vs man and woman and woman or man and man and woman... and the list goes on...

Then there's all the different acts, settings, actions, positions...

I think we can all agree that sex is more than a man and a woman in the missionary position on their bed in their master bedroom at night with the lights off trying to have a kid.

Then why is it so hard for us to accept that there can be more than one interpretation of sex? Of course, you've got the extreme views that sex should not be pleasurable if you're doing right. Or that anything sexual is demeaning to females. Or that only men are allowed to be in control.

Yeah, right.

Society's views on sex stem from a religious background. As mentioned previously, religious and social guidelines, though perhaps influenced by revelations from a higher power, are deeply rooted in the social settings of the time when they were created.

Monogamy was a solution to recklessness, disease, and the lack of self-control.
Sex for copulative purposes only was a solution to over-population, and recklessness.

But in our time, in our world, where (hopefully) the use of contraceptives is widespread, do we really need such restrictions?

In many cases, these ingrained values force us to shut down, close up, and hide from the world. We try to protect ourselves from the potential hurt that we've been told exists all around us because of sex. We see sexual acts as a form higher than regular everyday actions like washing your face - as it should be - but then put sex on a pedestal, high above other forms of pleasure.

Our understanding of sex makes us reluctant to let go and give in to the positive feelings that sexual play can bring. Our social environment doesn't accept that the purpose of sex can be purely a physical and often emotional release. That it's a perfectly acceptable, normal response to the hormones flowing in our bodies. That it is a form of pleasure that should not only be tolerated but encouraged. That the high that comes during and after sex can stem from more than just a sense of duty.

Sex, really, is the highest, purest form of physical pleasure a human being can enjoy. That being said, religion teaches us that the highest, purest spiritual pleasure we can experience is finding God and bathing in the understanding of life, the universe and everything. Then why is it so hard to believe that the orgasm that comes from sex is the material equivalent to the spiritual orgasm of being one with God?

I'm not suggesting you go on a sexual rampage with the purpose of finding God. That's definitely not going to work. Because just like in your quest for spiritual upliftment, you can only reach your zenith when everything works. The emotional longing, the intellectual stimulation and the physical attraction are all essential elements of a phenomenal sexual experience, aka orgasm. Without one of them, it might still be good - just not as good. Something will be missing. Something, perhaps, that will keep you from completely letting go and embracing the orgasm. Embracing that moment when everything stops, when the world waits for you, when light surrounds you and you just get it.

Back to society's interpretation of sex. Understandably, we can't go around screwing everything that moves. But that doesn't mean that it's wrong to want someone... many people, whether or not you're in a committed relationship. No matter what society says, sex should not be on a pedestal. It is not sacred to that extent. It's definitely something to be thoughtful about and careful with, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be explored to the fullest - no many how many different combinations or experiences you need in order to be fulfilled sexually.

Sex does not have to be tied to a relationship. It doesn't have to be done exclusively with someone you love. Or even just like, for that matter. Take, for example, rape. Just because it's not wanted by both parties doesn't make it not "sex".

Our perception of sex is muddled by our wants and needs for a relationship. Rarely do we examine sex alone, free from pretenses. And when some brave souls try to do so, they get shot down with prejudices and stereotypes. They're called whores and sluts, players and pervs. They're not good for you, your family will say. They only care about one thing, your friends will say. But no one will dare say that they're exploring ways to release the sexual tension that's building up inside of them. Because that's just wrong.

It's wrong to want to be happy on a sexual level. It's wrong to love someone yet long to feel another's body next to yours. It's wrong not to be fully committed, sexually, to one person alone.

Uhm, sure.

Do I need to bring up trust and honesty and feelings of insecurity once more?

What about love? Remember those different kinds of love? One of them is definitely sexual love. Pure physical attraction, the matching of your body with his or hers - or his and hers!

Sex should not be a taboo. It should not feel uncomfortable to talk about sex, at least, not much more uncomfortable than it is to discuss other natural need-fulfilling acts. Eating or sleeping, for example. Or going to the washroom, for that matter, which is only weird because we associate the body parts that take care of those natural releases with sex. Circular logic, perhaps, but none of those subjects should be taboo.

That's not to say that what happens between the bedsheets - or on the kitchen counter, in the movie theatre or on the backseat of a car - should be freely shared with everyone. There is such a thing as privacy, and I'd like to hope that people engaging in sexual acts together have spoken about what's fair game and what isn't. Again, it's all about the trust.

Just like having sex is all about trusting your partner(s), and therefore being comfortable enough to tell them how you feel and what you want, honest enough to tell them what you like and don't like. The concepts blend harmoniously well together, from the emotional and intellectual aspects of sex to the act itself.

And when I mean sex, I'm not talking simply about intercourse. I mean all forms of sexual play, from oral to anal to masturbation, multiple partners, same-sex or transgendered partners, role playing, fetishes and BDSM. None of this should be taboo. All of it is completely natural, no matter how many props you use or holes you choose to fill.

For one thing, sexual activity and the release of associated hormones does seem to have positive effects on one's health - from reducing the chances of senility to keeping your heart strong and your muscles active.

The observations I am making here also apply to sexualized situations. I mean being topless - male or female - or dressing seductively. I mean talking about your period, an itch in your crotch, or that porn you caught on TV last night. I mean walking around in your underwear. If you can stroll public beaches in a tiny bikini, why isn't it acceptable to wear your more covering undergarments in a semi-private location? As long as you're respectful about it and not doing it just to spite someone who is clearly uncomfortable with the subject, then why can't you be overt with your sexuality?

By not investing in sex as necessarily a physical extension of your feelings, you bring the concept and acts down to a more reasonable level. One where it can thrive and help you thrive without all the emotional attachments and heartbreaks that society suggests are inevitable. The feeling of intimacy is there, there's no doubt about that, but you can be physical for the sole purpose of feeling good and releasing sexual tension. No strings attached.

Again - I'm not implying that sleeping around just to be sexually satisfied is optimal. In fact, you'll probably be less satisfied overall. You'll probably feel like something is missing. That final piece of the puzzle that you just can't find even though you've looked inside the box, across the floor, and all over the room.

But sex can and should exist outside of relationships, not only to keep your body healthy, but also to keep you sane. As long as it is a safe connection, that you have the same understanding as all parties involved, and that you're not hurting anyone, betraying or helping to betray anyone's trust, then engaging in sexual activity is a-ok, no matter what society says.

I think that pretty much wraps up this exploration on love. I had a lot of fun - thoughtful fun - writing these, and it feels good to get my impressions out in the open. I hope that sharing them with you has caused you to think or rethink your perspectives, and perhaps this series can spark a discussion on the place and perception of love and all associated concepts in today's society.

Thank you for tuning in, and please stay tuned for more similarly enlightening (hopefully) posts and explorations...

Please feel free to leave comments, as long as they promote the exploration of the topic rather than bash my thoughts and opinions. I'm looking for constructive criticism, not hate mail. If you have nothing helpful to say, please don't bother saying it.

The Affairs of Life, Love and the Pursuit of Happiness

Let me just preface this by saying that my views on love are very different from most people's. I'm not suggesting that my opinions are correct and that everyone should think like me. I understand that love is a very personal subject, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, whatever that may be. There is no right and wrong on love, just different perceptions of it. Again, I'm not judging, just thinking.

This is the third installment of an exploration on love in the world of today. The first part can be found here, and part 2 is here.

Ah, "affair". A word with many connotations, good and bad. Whether it's used to refer to a flashy political or social event or a secret proscribed relationship, it has a sort of sexy, risqué flair to it.

Wikipedia lists several different types of relationship-related affairs, from forms of non-monogamy, to infidelity and adultery to emotional affairs.

As per most sources, "affairs" take place when one or both of the partners in a relationship are dissatisfied with their current situation. This dissatisfaction might come from falling out of love with your partner, from personal growth in separate directions, or a life change that has impacted the relationship in such a way that it is different from what it was before. In this case, honesty is primordial.

In order for the relationship to overcome a life change, you must be honest with your significant other, plainly laying out your feelings and impressions. And, not to be harsh, but if you're in a committed relationship, be it open or closed, you shouldn't have issues with being honest with your partner. You may perhaps be afraid of hurting them, but be warned that dishonesty leads to a lack of trust, and is the first crumbling freckle of sand in the castle you've built together. In the long run, it's always better to be honest now and cause only some pain rather than letting the betrayal drag on and causing increasingly more pain.

Fundamentally, an affair is betrayal of trust. But the current definitions of affair assume that love exists in fixed quantities, not that it's an energy, a life force. In adultery, the betrayal is the act of having intercourse with someone other than your partner. This assumes that sex is a higher, more important act than, say, playing a game of Scrabble together. In a purer sense, playing a game of Scrabble with someone else than your partner could be a form of adultery... if those are the boundaries you've agreed upon with your partner. But in most cases, couples base their definitions of affairs on the what society has dictated as being right and wrong. In this case, we're talking about sex.

Of course, adultery can be caused by more than just the act of intercourse. In most cases, it is understood to include other sexual acts, such as oral and anal sex. In some cases, one or both members of a relationship can believe it to include mutual masturbation, virtual sex (cyber or phone), masturbating or performing other sexual acts while thinking of someone other than your partner (unless that's the game, of course), and even flirting. As you can see, the list can go on and on. It's important to discuss, with your partner, what constitutes an affair.

Some couples have been known to have provisions such as celebrity lists, aka, if one of the members of the relationship were to be propositioned or have a chance of engaging in sexual activity with someone on the list, it would be okay. It would be temporarily acceptable for that person to engage in otherwise adulterous behaviour. If that's the case, that act of infidelity would not be considered an affair.

In other cases, certain people have trouble even "allowing", for lack of a better word, their partners to engage in platonic relationships with members of the opposite sex. The extra person tends to be attractive and so the partner might feel threatened by his or her presence in the life of their significant other. Sometimes, the woman feels that her partner might be tempted to be unfaithful, or worse, corrupted by this other woman. Sometimes, it is a man who feels insecure and unable to keep his female partner from resisting the temptation of being with another man, or worse, they think that the other man will steal her away from him.

This does happen in real life and I'm sure we can all think of at least one example of a similar situation.

It all sounds a bit ridiculous, doesn't it? Childish, even. But the feeling of threat is real and is powerful. It incites jealousy and initiates control. Slowly, these feelings take over, causing hurt to all parties involved. And yet, it can be traced back to a lack of trust in each other, and a lack of openness. Why not ask your partner how he or she feels about this new "threat"? Even if there is a sexual attraction, there is little cause for concern if both partners are comfortable being honest about their feelings. But from what I can tell, this pure form of honesty doesn't always exist in a relationship of "in love" and even in some relationships of "love".

Still, your partner would not abandon you for another simply because of sexual urges. There is an underlying need that he or she feels could be met in the new relationship. In an honest, trusting relationship, you would have already talked about what's missing, what needs are not being met. Perhaps there are needs that cannot be met in your relationship; a hobby that one partner simply does not enjoy, for example.

The line between friendship and a potentially sexual relationship can be blurred at times by feelings of insecurity. If you become jealous of the amount of time your partner spends with that other as opposed to you and are not upfront about it, the dynamic of your relationship will change, and that will be the cause of the hypothetical break up. If you cannot be honest about your wants and needs, how can you entrust your heart and soul that person? How can you be absolutely certain that they will care for you the way you do for them, when you can't even explain to them what kind of caring you want and need?

This consequences of this lacking can flow in two directions. On the one hand, a partner can become over controlling, limiting the time spent with others, whether of the same or opposite sex. This is obviously not a healthy relationship. And yet, so many of the couples around us live in a similar kind of confinement, feeling uneasy being friends or simply hanging out with someone because their partner "won't like it", or "might find out and get angry", "disapproves of me spending (so much) time with you".

To be blunt, that is so not cool.

It's stifling to the spirit and is clearly not a relationship based on love. It's a relationship based on hurt. Nothing good can come out of it, save for learning an important lesson on life.

On the other hand, the lacking can cause what has become referred to as an "emotional affair".

This is a topic that is close to my heart for several reasons. An avid supporter of open relationships, emotional affairs, to me, don't exist. They are a restrictive term applied to a completely natural process - that of caring for someone you are close to, on a platonic level or on a loving level.

For Wikipedia, an emotional affair is one where there is a certain amount of intimacy, with or without romance and/or sex. Some consider relationships where there is casual sex, aka friends with benefits, to be a type of emotional affair if one or both of the members are involved with someone else. Of course, some would consider that to be more than just an emotional affair.

Most of the time, an emotional affair is a friendship where the subjects are very close, perhaps even intimate in terms of physical comfort - from hugs, to snuggles, to kissing, even. In order to be an emotional affair, though, there must be caring that is different than in a regular relationship. There must be a connection on a higher level. There could even be love, without being in love. Unless it's an emotional affair that is characterized by a racy romance and a whole lot of flirting, perhaps without any true intention of being friends in every day life outside of the flirting, there must, in fact, be love, in one or several of the forms we explored last time.

To me, there is nothing wrong with having an emotional affair. It's a bond that is special, and unique, in the same way that all relationships are unique. Your relationship with your mom, for example, good or bad, is unique, because it is only between the both of you and is not the same as anyone else's relationship with their mom, as well as not the same as your relationship with anyone else. Based on certain definitions, your relationship with a close sibling or your best friend might be considered an emotional affair.

An emotional affair is also not a relationship, close or otherwise, where flirting is a regular part of the conversation. That's just teasing without any intention of following through on the actions. That's harmful to no one, and in fact, makes most people happy - unless it becomes an emotional affair.

Where it gets tricky is when the emotional affair takes away from the connection one shares with his or her significant other. Still, this is simply a perception since, if love is a limitless energy, it cannot be taken away from someone. Time, however, is fixed in the material world, and so an emotional affair can take away from your quality time with your partner.

Again, the only way an emotional affair becomes a problem is if there is a betrayal. If there is deception. Secrecy. If, in other words, there is a lack of honesty between you and your primary partner. If there is a lack of trust in the other to understand and to love and care for you enough to let you explore your feelings - and not necessarily sexual ones - in this so-called emotional affair. If there is a threat caused by a un-discussed and so undisclosed lacking. If jealousy and doubt are seeds sprinkled across your relationship. If insecurity is the reason you long to stay together. If love is not the underlying energy keeping you together.

Emotional affairs are only negative when they're not in the open. Because they prevent at least one of the participating parties from being happy. I believe that an open emotional affair is a positive addition to a relationship, a way for partners to relax, in a sense, from trying to meet a need they either can't or don't want to fulfill (think hobbies, for example), and a way for them to stop aching and feeling undeserving and perhaps even inferior for not being able to provide for their partner in some respects.

To me, a close friendship, whether or not it has sensual dimension, is essential to the success of a relationship. Sometimes, that close friendship happens to be your relationship with your partner. When that's not the case, it should not be referred to as an emotional affair because of the stigma associated to those words. Because of the negative connotations society assigns to it.

And that's why I don't believe in the term "emotional affair". An emotional affair is society's way of stereotyping the roles of men and women and perpetuating the concepts of love that were imposed long ago to help reign in our recklessness and high birth rate. It is society's version of right and wrong, based on ideas that prevent true love from flowing. That tells couples that it's okay not to talk about your wants and needs because society has already decided on them for you. Society makes some open relationships fail due to a difference in perception that was not broached prior to entering the open relationship, or ideas and ideals that may have changed over the course of the relationship, but due to the absence of honesty and trust, were not discussed. Societal norms and rules are also why closed relationships fail, for the same root reason: a lack of communication.

And yet all of this stems from the way sex is perceived, or rather, what society tells us we should think about sex, a subject I will tackle in my next post.

Stay tuned...

Please feel free to leave comments, as long as they promote the exploration of the topic rather than bash my thoughts and opinions. I'm looking for constructive criticism, not hate mail. If you have nothing helpful to say, please don't bother saying it.

Life, Love and the Pursuit of Happiness: On Gender

Let me just preface this by saying that my views on love are very different from most people's. I'm not suggesting that my opinions are correct and that everyone should think like me. I understand that love is a very personal subject, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, whatever that may be. There is no right and wrong on love, just different perceptions of it. Again, I'm not judging, just thinking.

This is the second part of an exploration on love in the world of today. The first part can be found here.

Women and Men are traditionally depicted as having different views on sex and on love. Society tells us that women don't think about sex as much as men do, and they don't enjoy it either. For them, it's more about the romance. These societal norms make women feel like they must hide their sexual thoughts. In truth, women think about sex just as much as men. If anything, because their sexual feelings are repressed, they might think about sex more then their male counterparts. Men, on the other hand, are free to express their sexual desires, because society tells them it's perfectly normal to do so.

This leads to a difference in opinions on love and therefore, on sex. But lets start with love.

Societal norms lead us to believe that men are pigs, who, even if they say they love you, just want to get busy with you - and everyone else. Obviously, I'm exaggerating a bit, but you get the point. Men, it is said, are incapable of romance and true love, except for certain exceptions. Girls, on the other hand, dream up a perfect love story, a Prince Charming rescuing her on his white steed... yet have little hope of it actually happening. So when a guy does care for them in that way, it's a welcome surprise. In some cases, it also plants the seeds of doubt.

Why? Because women are insecure. So are men, really, but society conveniently forgets to point that out, instead referring time and time again to a woman's apparent lack of self-confidence. I'm not a man, but I've spoken to many of them, and let me tell you - men are just as insecure as women. We have the same fears, and so, the same desires.

In other words, men and women approach relationships differently mostly because society tells us we should. There are stereotypes and discriminatory statements identified with each gender, and we tend to blindly take them to be fact. In the end, abiding to those societal norms makes it tougher for true love to exist. It makes it tougher for open relationships to take place, because society doesn't accept them, and in fact, rejects them almost in the same way Christianity has rejected Pagan practices.

These stereotypes actually encourage negative feelings to enter a relationship, be it insecurity, jealousy, doubt... And all of these can be attributed to a lack of trust. Trust, as we discussed previously, is the fundamental pillar of all relationships. Yet, for some reason, it almost seems to disappear in what should be one of the most important partnerships of our lives.

Why don't we pause for a second. Let us take a look at what trust actually means. Webster defines "trust" as:

1 a: assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something
b: one in which confidence is placed

And;

5 a (1): a charge or duty imposed in faith or confidence or as a condition of some relationship
(2): something committed or entrusted to one to be used or cared for in the interest of another
b: responsible charge or office
c: care , custody

Trust is not a one-way street, especially in a relationship. You must have confidence in each others' feelings and actions, but you also take custody of a tiny element of your partner's heart and soul... of their spirit. And you become responsible for caring for it, as they are responsible of caring for your spirit. Therefore, in order to function properly, trust must flow both ways.

Coupled with trust is the concept of honesty. According to Webster, "honesty" is:

2 a: fairness and straightforwardness of conduct
b: adherence to the facts : sincerity

Without honesty, there can be no trust. And since trust is essential to building and maintaining a good relationship, honesty is a must.

Which brings me to the topic of affairs, addressed in the next post, for readability purposes.

Stay tuned...

Please feel free to leave comments, as long as they promote the exploration of the topic rather than bash my thoughts and opinions. I'm looking for constructive criticism, not hate mail. If you have nothing helpful to say, please don't bother saying it.

On Life, Love and the Pursuit of Happiness...

Let me just preface this by saying that my views on love are very different from most people's. I'm not suggesting that my opinions are correct and that everyone should think like me. I understand that love is a very personal subject, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, whatever that may be. There is no right and wrong on love, just different perceptions of it. Again, I'm not judging, just thinking.

I strongly believe that love is a feeling in the truest of senses. It does not exist in fixed quantities. You don't have a certain amount of love that needs to be divided in pie chart fashion. It is very possible and in fact, necessary to love several people at the same time and be loved by many people at the same time. Of course, there are different kinds of love, and we need and live for all of them: familial, friendly, sexual, deep caring that goes beyond the basics of friendship, love that is borderline sexual, and what I'll term, for now, "true" love.

True love is the love most people are referring to when speaking of finding their soul mate. It's a love that, like other loves, flows freely and doesn't need to be worked on, at its basic form. I'm not saying that love comes devoid of work. I just mean that sometimes love just is. True love goes beyond caring, beyond sexuality - and in fact, can exist coupled with or free of sexual love. True love for someone means letting them go, wanting to do anything and everything to let them be happy, no matter at what cost to yourself.

When you find true love, you understand how all the different ranges of emotions enter the equation. It's when your love flows from your fingertips, over space and across time, reaching for your soul mate. It could be compared to the insane burst of feelings felt for an intense crush or infatuation. The difference is that it flows deeper. You feel it in your depths, in your soul, in your heart of hearts. You know it to be true.

Finding true love also reveals that trust is the absolutely most fundamental concept of any relationship. Without trust, there is no foundation for building friendship, investing in caring, or developing a long-term relationship. And in my opinion, the ultimate form of trust is releasing your grasp on your true love, allowing them to grow freely, with or without you. In other words, you trust your true love to feel the same way for you as you do for them. You trust them with your heart, after all.

You trust them not to break you, not to hurt you or betray you. You trust that the decisions they make in life and love are made with the intention of not harming you in any way. You trust that no matter what, they will come back to you. And you trust that they want all of this for you too.

This sacred bond flows deeper than physical relationships. It has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with soul. In my opinion, this pure love can only truly exist in the material world as an open relationship.

Now lets explain open relationships, shall we? According to Wikipedia, "An open relationship denotes a relationship (usually between two people) in which participants are free to have other partners."

It's actually more than that. An open relationship is one where the trust is so great that jealousy cannot exist. The love flows so deep that your partner's happiness is the single most important factor in the decisions you make about life and love. So this means that if your partner craves the company of another person, sexually or otherwise, you, as a member of the open relationship, agree and even encourage your partner to explore and release those feelings because of the happiness it would bring them, and therefore you. Whether or not you, as a couple, decide on restrictions or rules for your relationship doesn't affect the fundamental nature of the relationship - that it is based on trust and true love.

For me, there is no alternative to an open relationship. Perhaps I'm just a bit idealistic, but I truly believe that human beings are capable of an enormous amount of love. Yet we restrict ourselves, burden ourselves with right and wrong when those values were imposed in ancient times as solutions to problems like overpopulation or recklessness. I would like to think that at this point in existence, we're able to have safe sex and control our primal urges. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be ethical reasoning behind our actions. Far from it. I do, however, believe that love crosses those boundaries. You can't choose who you love or who you fall in love with.

Because there is a difference between loving and falling in love. And I think that's the main thorn in society's side. Most people can't tell love from being in love. My view is that love is uncontrollable. You can't tell it that it's okay to love some people and not others. You can't tell it to stop loving someone - it usually just is or isn't. However, in the same way that you can control anger and other impulses, you can work on love, and eventually not feel the same kind of love or the same intensity of love for someone. It's like having a passion for something. You can learn to be less passionate, but somewhere deep down, you'll always care about the things that have made you passionate in the past.

Being in love, on the other hand, is a state of being that can vary from a small, quick crush to an intense infatuation. It can lead to love or stem from it. Most of the time, people who are in long-term relationships are in love with their partners, whether or not they truly, fully love them. It's almost like the material manifestation of love, the day to day of a relationship. That's being in love.

Hopefully, most married couples are not only in love with each other but they love each other too. The couples who get divorced either stop being in love with each other, perhaps because things change and the day-to-day of the relationship becomes too tedious, or because they realize that their love is not true, not full and free. Either way, they stop being happy pursuing life and love together. If they can work things out amicably throughout and after the separation, they most likely love each other but have simply fallen out of love.

That was my situation. Which brings me to gender differences on the concept of love, which I'll take on in my next post.

Stay tuned...

Please feel free to leave comments, as long as they promote the exploration of the topic rather than bash my thoughts and opinions. I'm looking for constructive criticism, not hate mail. If you have nothing helpful to say, please don't bother saying it.