This starts out off-topic. OK, so it takes me 700 words to get to dating and relationships.
The hole.
Some of us believe that the current crisis will just get worse — we don’t think that most politicians are willing to do what is best for the nation, if it won’t get them re-elected. Others of us think that the hole dug with regulations, hatred toward anyone “rich”, and racial divisiveness is too big to get past any time soon. Then there are the tree huggers that might actually have a couple of points, such as Peak Oil and the problems with “all that natural gas” in the US.
Peak Oil.
We are discovering new finds of oil at 1/4th the annual rate we are using up the last of the old oil fields, the oil that is left in old fields is getting much more expensive to extract and process, and new finds are more expensive to get to — and China has been contracting out most new finds for the next 20 years.
Natural Gas.
Natural gas has been considered mostly a waste product from producing oil, since it produces so much less energy and doesn’t produce near as much profit. Now, with the worldwide demand for oil continuing to rise — meaning there is nothing the US can do to curb the trend — and the oil being produced now and into the future only getting more expensive, in fits and starts, interest in natural gas is increasing. Unfortunately, there is still less profit in bringing more natural gas to market.
So the energy industry is turning to an interesting technique, hydraulic fracturing. They pump water laced with interesting, but toxic, chemicals underground, causing the rocks to break up and release the natural gas in great bunches, resulting in enough production to make enough money to keep the energy company in business.
Between the chemicals pumped underground, and the contaminated blown back up the well and stored in ponds at the well site — people and towns near the wells, within some number of miles, have been reporting poisoned water in their wells. Most have been quietly paid off, some supplied with drinking water by the energy companies running the fraccing wells.
One thing that Silicon Valley learned back in the 1970s and 1980s, where early semiconductor plants leaked toxic solvents into the ground accidentally, is that water moves. Contamination spreads. It was estimated that much of the water in Arizona wells, as one for-instance, took 100 years to get there from where rain water and stream water became an underground aquifer. To me this means that fracking results in profits to energy companies, but poisoning of a significant amount of water that over the decades will eliminate the water that most farms, towns, and cities rely on. We let the EPA cut the mileage of our vehicles by 20% to 80% because the exhaust, and leaded gas, poisoned the air somewhat less that fracking poisons our water.
And various parts of America are already familiar with the limits on clean water. What happens if the Colorado River (part of Southern California’s water source), or the livestock producers of the Midwest, Pacific Northwest, the dairies of America are affected?
Anyway.
Anyway, the point is that some fairly reasonable people think that times are getting harsher, and will get worse still before they get better. One scenario is that the US government and economy will collapse like the USSR did, back when so many of the regions split into separate nations, some warring on each other, except that in the US we are depending on an intact government and international shipping for food and necessities. Gulp. Others think that they need the guns and bunkers to ride out the tide of zombies, roving drug lord bands, and mobs of the unprepared. There are folk doing what they can to transition to a simpler, less dependent way of life, those consciously planning to adapt to a changing climate and economic environment and those focusing on local food security and backyard “homesteading” — or being community and personal resource people for the changes.
Dating, and the First Move.
A point that Crunchy Chicken (“Putting the mental in environmental”) makes in a recent post, “Community vs. Survivalism”, got me thinking.
The majority of people writing about Peak Oil and, therefore, proposing their version of the future are men. Perhaps it’s the extremists that stick out and are what people remember, but I’ve heard many complaints about the whole prediction that Peak Oil = Social and Economic Armageddon. . . . I, frankly, think this prediction is ridiculously inaccurate. I like to think it’s because I subscribe to a certain logic about how the world works. Others might argue that it’s because of my gender.
Of the women writing about Peak Oil, the predictions are much more metered. The conversation revolves mostly around preparation. I find it similar in concept to that whole “nesting in” period right before a woman gives birth. It’s like instinctually women know some trauma is coming and need to prepare by making the home comfortable and clean and storing up food and supplies. Nothing panicky, just getting things done. If the home is set up right, we somehow know that we can handle pretty much anything to come. Even if deep down we’re scared shirtless.
The male reaction must be based on something else because for many male Peak Oil writers out there, it degrades quickly into Ramboism. Load up the shotgun, honey, this is going to be bad! In fact, I would argue that many actually welcome this breakdown of society. But what could this be attributed to? Bear with me here while I stereotype half the population.
The human male, over the last several centuries, has been stuffed into a society where all their evolutionary self-preservation instincts are kept under lock and key. . . . In these survivalist scenarios, the men get to scratch that evolutionary itch. I think it’s safe to say that fantasy is one thing, but the reality is that most modern men are ill-equipped to deal with the violence that comes with anarchy.
Of course these are all just gross generalizations, but then again why am I hunkering down into gatherer mode, dehydrating strawberries and stockpiling peanut butter? I sure as hell ain’t pregnant.
And now that I’ve completely stereotyped everyone, I admit that you can’t reduce people down to instincts only. But, I do think it’s important to see where people are coming from, what their motivations are, conscious or otherwise and take that into consideration when reading someone else’s predictions. It’s all a crapshoot as far as the future goes, but it helps to process the unknown when looked at this way.
In part, my response got me thinking.
You described women and preparing for trauma by making the home comfortable, supportive – a redoubt, a fortress, a refuge.
How about portraying men (who were often raised by women) as finding a threat and attacking it. They see dangers and collapse of what is secure about them, and prepare for the worst, stocking up on essentials, building the remote refuse(sp), sharpening the spear and setting aside what weapons might be needed. Convert that attacking bear into a snug coverlet.
How is that for complementary stereotyping?
“Is it OK for her to make the first move?”
The title of a survey caught my eye, and brought it home for me.
Mostly when Cosmo or the fashion industry talks about “the first move”, that move is sexually oriented. That aspect, the sexual activity or invitation, establishes that the immediate goal is desire for a sexual partner.
It doesn’t have to be that way. What we call romance, or courtly love, was invented in Italy during the Renaissance. Before that the infamous words, “If you loved me, you would . . .” had not been uttered. There was almost no means for a sexually active woman to actually find a marriage partner. Bonding and marriage were for security, religious or economic obligation, or arrangement by the parents or community.
By which I mean to say, there is another way. Most guys only know about “wooing” as proving their sexual prowess; it is in all the magazines and bathroom grafiti that is what attracts a woman. Cosmo, Vogue, movies and TV, every jewelry store and most clothing stores rely on an undergarment or garment or accessory or scent to prove so sexually alluring that the intended object will be overcome, and become a grateful and adoring life partner.
I look around, and it seems to me that since the Sexual Revolution in the 1960s, when you get together for sex, that is mostly what you can hope for. Those that marry a responsible and reliable partner from their community with the intent to make a home and family, they have a bit better shot at making their partner a life partner.
When buying a horse and bringing it home, the saying goes, “Start out as you mean to go on.” Physical intimacy and sexual relations must be part of any family (or there won’t be any children to grow the community, secure the nation, or define the family). But most anyone can, with diligence and care, arrive at a reasonably satisfying compromise of intimacy. Most of what makes a family is security and profit. A couple should be able to achieve more together than either alone; a partnership. They should support each other’s roles in the relationship, nurture each other, and each is responsible for defending home, family, and honor. A couple is a member of the community in it’s own right, in addition to the roles of the individual adults.
If your first move is to establish reputation and understanding of the prospect’s character, life skills, values, and interest in family and community, with as little sexual content as possible (beyond your own basic grooming), your move establishes the start of a relationship that doesn’t have to be a hormone-driven escalator to survive. Whoever makes that “first move”.
Why the egg comes before the chicken.
I have found that it is easy enough to think about intimacy with someone you trust, respect, and have found to be honorable. Validating that a sex partner is honorable, honest, interested in a shared life and family, that gets really, really distracting for me, and for the relationship. “Touch here”, “softer” is easier to introduce than “don’t lie to me” and “why were you writing down that hot chick’s twitter account?”