(From her own, private blog with her permission.  I have left it fully intact but the first part won't make sense to many of you.  Images added by me.)

Also a small badger.

Yesterday evening, as some of you caught, I got into a bit of a debate with a friend on the definition of "cheating". For the most part, I totally agreed with her points, until she came to "Is it cheating if his wife knows about us and says it's okay? Yes. You are cheating."
Whoa! Huh?

Cheat

1: to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud
2: to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice
3: to elude or thwart by or as if by outwitting

I'm not going to rehash the whole debate, but one would assume that two married peoples are capable of having an open and frank conversation about something so potentially sensitive. One would HOPE that the feelings of your spouse would matter to you and that a joint decision could be reached between the two.
So the "knows about us and says it's okay" part is presumably truth.
I don't get how this is considered cheating at all.

BUT, that's not what we're going to talk about.
Inevitably, in these sorts of conversations, I always piss off a few ppl by pointing out biology, anthropology, psychology, zoology... (some other ologies) and the fact that humans are just another animal. (YEEPS!)

Human

"Humans (variously Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens sapiens) are primates of the family Hominidae, and the only extant species of the genus Homo. Humans are distinguished from other primates by their bipedal locomotion, and especially by their relatively larger brain with its particularly well developed neocortex, prefrontal cortex and temporal lobes, which enable high levels of abstract reasoning, language, problem solving, and culture through social learning." (thank you, Wiki)

Looks like a party to me!

We... are a species of primate of the class of mammalia.

I fail to see how this prompts the peoples to grab their torches and pitchforks, but it almost always does.
My point in bringing this up is that we (collectively) seem to hold ourselves above the rest of the animal kingdom. WHY? Why does humanity have to think they're so fucking special?
Cuz we love? Tell a dog lover that his dog doesn't really love him. Go ahead, do it.
Cuz we're socially dependent? Not so unique. Look at any pack or troop.
Cuz we build shit? Ants, bees, and termites build shit.... Fuck, they have organized social structures. Do they love? Hell. Maybe. I dunno. I've never been an ant.
The point to all this is that while monogamy is quite common in birds, it's not so common for mammals. In fact, only about 9% of mammals are monogamous. Only about a quarter of the primates (that's us) live monogamously.
Human incidence of social monogamy
"According to the Ethnographic Atlas, of 1,231 societies from around the world noted, 186 were monogamous; 453 had occasional polygyny; 588 had more frequent polygyny; and 4 had polyandry."

WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK? MONOGAMY ISN'T EVEN THE SOCIAL NORM FOR HUMANS!!

There are two working theories on why humans evolved monogamy. 1) Infanticide, and 2) geographic distance between females.
That's right. People paired up to protect their offspring from other men who would kill babies to ensure the longevity of their own seed... and because the mens didn't want other mens impregnating their womens while they were off impregnating other womens.

Noble, right?

So, since we've established that monogamy is not necessarily the "norm"...
I get confused when people talk about "traditional marriage".
Whose tradition are you glorifying?

I know, you can't read this - but click on the image, it's worth it.

Monogamy didn't really take off in the Western world until the plow age. People worked hard for their land, needed to breed a work force to maintain it, and wanted to keep it in the family. Marriage at that point was only for the upper classes. Women were traded for money and livestock and property. Love was not involved in marriage. Love was for commoners (who were not allowed to marry). Love was for mistresses. Love in marriage has only been socially appropriate since the 17th-18th centuries.

Marriage as a "holy union" only came about somewhere around the 5th century, but it didn't become one of the Seven Sacraments until 1215. Still, it wasn't until the 16th century that weddings had to be preformed publicly by a priest. So... if you said you spoke vows with your hunny down by the creek, the world viewed you as married. (Does "Oh God! Oh God! Yes! Yes! ..... I love you", count as vows? Hehehe I guess I've been married a few times!) (source)
(And, tho this is a totally DIFFERENT argument, up until about the 12th century, the Catholic Church preformed male-bonding ceremonies... that's right, gay marriages. Google that shit!)
So considering that our idea of "traditional marriage" is only about 250 years old, and that this idea started drastically evolving in about the 1950's, this "tradition" only lasted about 190 years. Even if you're one of those ones who thinks that the earth is only a few thousand years old (NUTS!), the tradition that you cling to is relatively brief and new and dying.

I am just trying to state some facts here. I'm not trying to tell you what is right or wrong, what you should or shouldn't be, or what is better or worse. In fact, I'm not even a poly person.

OMG!! I'm a straight, mono-type person.

Cuz that's who I am. It doesn't make it right or wrong. It doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with what you are or who you should be or who and how you should love.
Hell, it might not even have anything to do with who I am tomorrow. ~shrug~
I just get agitated by people who cling to falsehoods and hold them up to measure the "wrongs" of others.

If you don't like it, mind your own fucking business.

I'ma make this short and to the point.

I'm seeing a lot of two things on the internet right now.  Only one of them bothers me.

1. 

2. I DO NOT LIKE THIS EXPERIENCE.  I FIND IT DISTRESSING AND UPSETTING TO MY TENDER BITS AND MORALITY.  BUT I SHALL CONTINUE TO EXPERIENCE IT WILLINGLY BECAUSE IT WILL GIVE ME SOMETHING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT ON FACEBOOK WHEN I GET BORED WITH CANDY CRUSH SAGA.

The End

(PS, bros - I just want to give a shout-out to my lovely husband whose response to this post was, "Yeah seriously.  She's an adult.  If she wants to sexualise herself, that's -fine-."  He gets me.)

This gave me a giggle and I thought I'd share it.

I can't even make this shit up. Edible Anus

Do they taste like anus?

People write into advice columns every day.  Many of them have extremely legitimate problems.  Some of them just have no common sense of their own and need to borrow someone else's.  Some of them are cute, some of them are worthy of a well-timed sad headshake, some of them even enrage us with the douchery involved in their writing.

I find it difficult to believe that a 10 year old used the words
"objects to" in a sentence....but I guess the asshole
dad who crushed his dreams probably wrote it for him.

Personally I've always been a fan of Savage Love where Dan Savage dispenses usually very sound advice while simultaneously making me giggle...but recently I've  been introduced to a new thing.

Here's That Bad Advice You Were Hoping For

Henceforth referred to as That Bad Advice...because I'm lazy...and also have to leave for work soon.

That Bad Advice takes posts from various sources and mocks the shit out of them.  Usually the poster is laughably unreasonable in the situation.  They're an asshole, clueless, inconsiderate or sometimes nearly criminal in their actions.

That Bad Advice takes their questions and tells them what they want to hear, that they're not unreasonable - all the whole making fun of them.  It's pretty awesome.

Here's the one that got me hooked:

In case you weren't aware, Dear Fucktards reader..."Penisfeels" is the best fucking word ever.

You need to go read this right now, it's hilarious...

wut?

People have always posted little sayings on the internet. Some are funny. Some are corny.  Some are offensive.  Some are true and some were pulled out of someone's ass because they sounded good.  Some are simply misattributed and others...no one knows, but they're not true.

When you post things on the internet, particularly in places like Facebook - you are saying to the world, "Here this is.  I believe this."  When the information you posted isn't humorous but presents information as being correct, true or scientific - doing your research is always a good idea.

In particular lately, I've seen a few posts on psychology claiming that you can tell certain things about people based on their actions and demeanor.

In my mind, the psychologists in question were terrible with spelling, punctuation and grammar.

Something like this sets of alarm bells in my head.  Laughter being a sign of loneliness, for example.    #2, someone sleeping a lot when sad is no surprise - most of us know that sleeping more is a symptom of depression.  The rest of it....I just want to know who said this? Where? When? Were they a reputable psychologist? Were they just someone making it up? Are these famous quotes?  I don't know...and you haven't told me.

The person in question who posted this on Facebook, when I asked him who said these things, told me to look it up.  He did so in that way people do when confronted by a request for proof, knowing full well that they have none.  He attempted to push the burden of proof onto me.

The problem is that not everyone is aware enough of the variability of Facebook to take everything they read with a grain of salt.  Someone, somewhere, will probably dump their boyfriend because he can't cry, believing him to be weak.  Don't believe it? You're not as jaded as I am.  There are a lot of stupid people on the internet.

But that's an extreme example.  Not everyone is gullible and believes the things they read on the internet.  ...but at best, it's questionable for you to post things like this that present at least half-assedly as science, without backing it up with some kind of notation - this person said it.

Because people listen to things that are said to them.  Some of them don't even intend to - and these little "factoids" nestle themselves down deep in their brains only to resurface later.  The person probably doesn't remember where they heard it, might not remember the context -but they tell someone else, who tells someone else who again re-post it on Facebook as a "fresh" little "factoid".

This perpetuates the stupid.  Are we getting the point?

In fact, when I DO try to Google this little snippet, I am redirected to...social networking sites.  I do not find a lovely website that attributes these little bits to any psychologist or philosopher but instead to the Google+, Facebook, Myspace, Tumblr and Twitter accounts of other people who have posted it - having not already done their research.

One fresh perspective (as well as the top Google result for me) was This Is Not Psychology, a Tumblr account which appears to be dedicated to posting JUST this type of meme - psychological gibberish that isn't actually real psychology.  Here's another:

Don't pigeonhole me!

Note the complete lack of a source. The Tumblr did cite a source but only where the image originally came from. Fair enough. That website did its job and what it was intended to do. It was created as a storage place for bullshit and bull-shit adjacent bullshit. And the person who created it echoed the point I'm trying to make here:

"You can’t just state a fact, then get pissy when people ask for a source. I’m not in the business of pseudoscience."

Well said.

Now what's a girl to do? I suppose a girl's got to ask a psychologist, doesn't she? Now to find one who will give me the time of day over this bullshitty bullshit shit. I'm in a swearing mood today.

In the meantime, all of you fabulous bitches just keep being awesome. I'll keep being an asshole...it's what I do best, yo.