Open Skies

My wife went on a cute date this week with a partner she hasn't gotten to connect with recently and they both brought each other flowers. My boyfriend is completely overcome and being a useless lesbian (their words) about a cute enby who has been flirting with them via text for months but is finally in town this week.

When I have done educational work around non-monogamy a question I get a lot is basically how I cope with the overwhelming terrible feelings associated with imagining my partner having sex with other people. I struggle to answer this question because I do not have overwhelming terrible feelings when I imagine my partner having sex with other people but also I do not choose to imagine this very often. I do not have either curiosity or horror about this topic. Mostly I feel that it is generally not my business.

Most often when people say "I couldn't do that!" my answer is then you shouldn't. If you are not interested in non-monogamy you shouldn't do it. I love that my wife and her partner gave each other flowers and I love that my boyfriend is a useless lesbian. I think this is adorable. I'm having my coffee and feel warm inside because it reminds me how in love I am with both of these sweet humans. But there are many people who do not have this response and are still attracted to non-monogamy, and "just have the correct, enlightened feelings" is a shitty and too-common answer.

Another answer to this question is that I most often relate to my partners' other relationships from the stance of being their friend, rather than their lover. When my wife tells me she's in a dry spell with another partner, I am concerned because I want my friend to have a healthy and satisfying relationship, and when she tells me the dry spell is over I am excited because I want my friend to have a healthy and satisfying relationship. I do not think about what that means mechanically in the same way I also do not imagine in detail any other friend having sex.

Another answer to this question is that I think of my relationships as existing within an ecological space in which all relationships affect one another. My girlfriend's other relationships being in a good place means that our entire relational ecosystem is healthier. Her being in conflict with someone, whether it's a partner or her mom, introduces conflict into the ecosystem, so I have an interest in supporting her other relationships being healthy. Her peace and security and satisfaction are my peace and security and satisfaction. If that comes from her getting railed by some dude on Grindr, her need is my need.

Another answer to this question is that I am extremely comfortable with my own jealousy and can let it arise and pass without leaving a mess. I am not afraid of jealousy or anger or other big feelings and can acknowledge them to myself and to partners without a sense of terror or obligation or shame. I will note, good management of big feelings does not make these feelings smaller or more pleasant. I feel like I have done a good job managing a big feeling when I react in a way that does not generate a new, avoidable second problem.

Another answer to this question is that I understand jealousy as pointing to an unmet need that I have and I can generally address that unmet need without reference to the other relationship and usually without conflict. If I'm jealous that my partner is seeking casual hookups rather than having sex with me, I'm actually upset that we aren't having more sex--that ultimately has nothing to do with whether she is also cruising on the apps. I can address that by saying "I'd like us to have more sex" and then if she's amenable to that, doing things that make space for us to have more sex, like being more flirtatious and scheduling dates in ways that increase the potential for sexual connection. Reframing jealousy as actionable desire reduces resentment dramatically (this is also something I'm working on generally--what if desire is not painful deprivation but in fact the first ingredient to basically all pleasure???).

Sometimes it's not actionable. Sometimes my partner is having sex with someone else and does not wish to have sex with me. Sometimes my partner is publicly attached to another partner but unwilling to be public with me because they are not out to their parents yet. Sometimes my partner is moving in with their other sweetie and would not wish to live with me. Sometimes my partner is married to someone else and would not marry me even if it were legal or they would, but it's not. And in that situation I most often privately validate that there is grief about not having sex or domesticity or validation that I want, and I decide whether the relationship overall is something I want given that it has that feeling in it. I am clear with myself about which unmet needs I am willing to leave permanently unmet in a given relationship and overall, and I hold the responsibility for that decision, which allows me to relate to each partner on the level of what they are actually offering, without resentment. If I do not want what they are offering, I leave.

Another answer to this question is that I struggled a lot more with jealousy and resentment when I dated people who treated me like shit, and when I hated myself and felt like I was worthless. Now that I am in the habit of forming secure, trusting relationships with people who treat me with respect, difficult jealousy just doesn't come up very often. A lot of what drove my unpleasant reactions in earlier relationships was that I genuinely could not rely on my partners to be honest or kind. Now that I can, it's easier to relax.

Another answer to this question is I have worked pretty hard to base my sense of self worth on something other than being sexually desired by others and to construct relational spaces where everyone feels like they can assert their genuine needs, even when it means not connecting intimately. When I felt like my entire worth as a person was whether I was fuckable (to everyone at all times), sexual or romantic rejection felt like being totally worthless as a person and a dry spell was catastrophic to my well-being. So did anyone's interest in not-me, because why aren't they interested in me? Now I am able to accept someone declining sex or rescheduling a date or not wanting to date me at all or wanting someone who isn't me without it feeling like a total judgment of who I am as a person.

Another answer to this question is that there are times when jealousy clouds issues in ways that make it difficult to judge what to do, especially in the case of abuse within the relational ecosystem. Controlling relationships seem to generate more jealousy than healthy ones--jealousy can justify isolation tactics, and isolation can generate jealousy. But subjectively it's hard to distinguish "I feel jealous about the time you're spending with this person" from "this person is intentionally undermining your relationship with others, and I happen to be one of those people." The best answer I have for this is that I try to cultivate relational spaces where jealousy and fear and unmet needs can get discussed without generating blame or obligation, and where there's a high level of trust that a person is raising issues honestly and not to manipulate. But honestly, when there's an abusive relationship in the ecosystem, it fucks everything up for a while, and there's probably no way to respond that makes that not happen.

Levine today:

Arguably the way to do that is to build a general-purpose factory that uses people (portfolio managers) as inputs and turns them into outputs (portfolios). The inputs, in this model, get used up to make the outputs. The inputs are people. “Citadel consumes new traders as voraciously as Starbucks consumes beans,” writes Sernovitz, and:A former Citadel portfolio manager said of such overhauls, “The next incarnation of what gets built is better than what was there before, and that’s always the case.” The downside: “a highway wreck of human bodies.” Almost every former employee I spoke to had stories about turnover. One had five bosses in five years; another kept a “Book of Souls” listing the fifty colleagues who had left his small trading unit in six years. Yet another moved to Chicago only to see his boss’s boss be immediately fired, and then his boss fired. ... (A Citadel spokesperson said of its firings, “We have deliberately built a high-performance culture.”) “It was a gift to be there and a gift to leave,” one former employee told Sernovitz, which is perhaps how Citadel feels too.

So this is much less harsh than it sounds, and that itself shows the benefits of arriving at a different equilibrium. It's true Citadel goes through workers like Skittles. Some vice-president might have a random idea, like a new method for combining HFT and NLP. They're hire one senior expert, 5-10 mid-level finance people with experience in one of those fields, and tell them to work on it for six or seven figures. Then a year and a half later, the direction of the company might change, or they might just see the experiment is bringing in mediocre yields and isn't about to be a new "Indian Options Market." They immediately fire all of those people.

That sounds unfair, but the unfairness is the point.

Because they are, well, nice about it. There's the famous finance garden leave - a no compete contract for 1 year that pays you your regular salary. And they are very generous with healthcare over that time. There's no hard feelings from the company, they're not treating you like a potential disgruntled employee who might sabotage the company so we have to block your access ASAP. *It's not your fault and it's not about you being bad and everyone knows that.* More like the last day of a freelancer's contract - the mission is simply over, but you might get picked up again.

And outside, the register holds. No one sees "1 year at Citadel" on your resume and calls to ask what the problem was. It's the mark of a veteran, you went through a high tier qualification sieve, got experience at the very top, and through no fault of your own are on the market again. Your resume might as well say "took a break to climb Mt. Denali."

This pays dividends for the company. When a project looks like it has plateaued - either failed, or crested with no unicorn returns - they can cut it loose. You don't have to find new spots in the org for those employees. You don't have an entrenched director fighting to keep his department from being cut. It's much less friction. AND because you know you can end trial projects painlessly, you can also START a lot more projects on a whim. The company catch more of-the-moment opportunities, and is not carrying the luggage of a thousand past projects with salaries dependent on pretending this project works.

*prolonged silence* “oh my…”

“sir…sir how will we make first contact with them? surely we…we cannot refuse this handclasping ritual, they will take it as an insult, but what vulcan would agree to such a distasteful and uncomfortable ritual??”

Bonus: here’s a screencap of Solkar doing the “my body is ready” pose right before he shakes Zefram Cochrane’s hand:

That’s why he’s so slow in doing it, and so sensual. A part of Solkar can’t believe this is happening, despite it being a perfectly logical thing to expect from a human, and the rest of him can’t believe how good it is.

I bet that if the camera zoomed in any further we would see the dilation of Solkar’s pupils and a quickly-repressed shiver of delight. Cochrane’s firm, businesslike clasp is probably (in sexual terms) being perceived as a deliciously carnal display of dominance.

A census can understand population level trends just fine without storing your assigned sex as part of your legal identity. They can ask for this information in the census. The census tracking population level data is not the same as your assigned sex being permanently part of your legal identity. (At least, the way my country does a census.)

Your doctor can know your anatomy by you communicating it to them if/when it is relevant. There is never a time when they might need to know something that could only be conveyed by your assigned sex being officially relayed to them via government documentation. You can just use your words. The same way you tell your doctor any other part of your medical history.

People respond to "the government doesn't need to store your assigned sex as part of your legal identity" as if they are hearing "no one should ever acknowledge gender or sex at all" but that's not what's being said.

Your birth certificate conveys important legal information about you. Your name, as a designation. Your parents, as they have a legal obligation to you. Your place of birth, as that place has a legal obligation to you. Date and time of birth, since age is important for application of some laws.

And sex. That's on there too. But what is the legal relevance? What laws is the government going to apply to you differently based on what sex is on your birth certificate? I can only think of one thing my government really uses that for, and that is to determine who has to sign up for the draft. And guess what, fuck that shit anyway. The government also used to use this to decide who is allowed to marry who. They don't do that anymore. For now.

The cuts, the slow ramp-ups, how it matches his dance moves.