A little clarification, slightly out of context.

It's happened in the past, both in conversation and in past blog posts such as this one, that I have played with the idea that one's sexual orientation may be fluid, rather than a static state.  That is to say, that I don't necessarily agree with the idea that one's orientation is decided at birth. 

Keep in mind, I know I'm speaking as a woman who identifies as straight, thus far (in keeping with where I am going with this), so I will try to keep my privilege in check and not make assumptions.

This is where people either respond with A) "That's ludicrous!  You can't choose whether to be gay or straight!" or B) "Aha! So you agree, it IS a choice!"

No.  That's not what I'm saying. If I say one's orientation can change, that doesn't mean I'm saying it's a choice.  It's based on the difference between the following two adjectives

Changing: Something that is capable of change.

Changeable:  Something that can be changed by force or manipulation.

So while I would agree that one's sexuality is unchangeable (that is to say, you cannot force change upon it - you can't 'cure' someone of being gay/straight, nor can someone say 'I've decided not to be gay/straight today') I would question the idea that it is a completely static birth-to-death state of being.

My trip to the psychic fair

Yesterday two good friends and I, in the name of doing something fun and different and relatively cheap, decided to check out a psychic fair.

In matters that one might call 'supernatural', I'm kind of what you might call a hopeful skeptic. I have an interest in things like clairvoyancy, mediumship, telemetry and whathaveyou, but still not sure I really believe in a lot of it. I've seen and experienced things that lead me to believe that there is a lot more out there than modern science has found explanations for. However, there are other things that people claim to be supernatural can really be chalked up to psychology, and unfortunately in some circumstances, good old hucksterism.

I think there are planes of existence and dimensions that science is not yet capable of exploring and explaining but may be able to, one day. Just look at the atom. I'm sure that once upon a time, the idea that all matter was made of tiny little particles that you can't see probably seemed like a whole lot of bunk, until we were able to create the technology to prove such things.

Anyway, the fair had about a dozen or so booths, a number of people doing readings and such. The aromatherapy/reiki booth was interesting and the two girls (twin sisters I believe) who worked the booth were fun and interesting. My friends both had some kind of foot therapy thing done, which they said was very relaxing. This is one of the areas I have an easier time buying, as I think a lot of it is psychological. Who has not been triggered by a scent at some point or another? At the same time though, it all may come down to a form of meditation, and forcing yourself to RELAX. I think a lot of the reason reiki and aromatherapy and the like seem to work is because you have someone there to guide you in your state of relaxation because in this day and age, it really is something that a lot of people are incapable of doing on their own.

A lot of the booths had people doing readings of all types, and since I was broke I kind of bypassed them. An amusing Scottish man did a quick (and I mean that literally, the guy spoke SO fast) numerology thing for each of us. Horoscopes and numerology rank pretty low on the credit scale for me because:

A) if people want to believe in something bad enough, they will see evidence that supports their belief and ignore that which conflicts.. this is confirmation bias.

B) I never seem to fit the descriptions of my 'signs', or I'll only half-fit them. The exception to this is my chinese horoscope. Last Christmas my co-workers and I all went out for breakfast at a local Chinese place and there was a fair amount of laughter all around when I read that 'Monkeys generally have a low opinion of others'. What, me? Really? nooooooo.

And again, with the numerology guy, some stuff fit me (jack of all trades, master of none.. yup. I also liked 'You do good things well, but you do bad things just as well when it comes to the drink and sex' - haha, nice.) but a lot of it I just kind of shook my head and said no, that doesn't sound like me.

There were also some booths selling some very nice artwork and handmade jewellery and such.. these had more appeal to me than trying to find my spirit guide or my guardian angel. Spirits and angels and communication with the deceased are more things that I have a hard time giving credibility to, especially as recently I've been privately grappling with a lot of my own beliefs/ideas regarding what happens after we die. But again, there are things I have seen with my own eyes that won't allow me to write off the idea entirely - Mom, you know what I'm talking about.

One of the readers was in Barrie for the first time so they were offering a 'One question' reading for free (usually for $15). I don't see the point in turning down anything that's free, if my effort is minimal, so I signed up and when my turn came I went into talk to Mother May, a matronly Jamaican woman and apparently third-generation psychic.

This was my second time ever speaking to a paid psychic (I have a couple of friends who 'see' whom I have spoken with). My first paid experience was for lack of any other better word, terrible. I came out of the reading very upset with some of the predictions she had made. The fortunate part was that her visions concerning my personality and my family life and whatnot were way off (she claimed I had unresolved issues with my father and that I didn't get a long with my sister etc etc.. yeah, FAIL.) so the predictions she had made were pretty much inaccurate too.

The only nice or good thing she had told me was that I should take up painting, so in an effort to take something positive out of the experience, I gave it a try, and well, I enjoy it. So that's something.

The woman I saw previously gave me a very negative vibe as soon as I had walked in. Mother May on the other hand gave off a very soothing kind of air. I asked my question (I'm going to keep it to myself, as it's personal) and she gave me an answer I had already kind of figured for myself. Although the confirmation was comforting, the skeptic in me couldn't help but think "but isn't that what anyone who asked such a question would 'want' to hear?" I felt my own confirmation bias kick in, as most of the things she said applied pretty closely to my situation, except for one.. but you find yourself going "but by *this* she could mean *this*" to which point even the stuff that doesn't make sense, makes sense.

All in all, it was a fun way to kill an afternoon, and it got me thinking about a lot of unexplained phenomena that still exists in the world, things that we still have so much to learn about like dreams, and deja vu and why some people seem more attuned to the energy around them. Why, when I walk into an old old house, do I feel a warmth or well-being that I don't get walking into a pre-fab model home? Is it the ability of inanimate objects to absorb the energy of people they once belonged to?

Being skeptical doesn't necessarily mean that seeing has to be believing, but it does mean questioning what our senses tell us.

well, that's all for today. I'll be mulling these questions and more while I do laundry. Oh Sunday.

Because with chicks.. it's cool, ya know?

Read an interesting article in the Toronto Star today regarding a study on Late-Blooming Lesbians - that is to say, women who for most of their lives identified as either straight or mostly-straight, who later in life, enter into relationships with other women, sometimes leaving family behind. The study suggests that women's sexuality may be fluid rather than a static state of being. It suggest that women who 'come out' late in life may not have been repressing their sexual tendencies as many might assume, but that a woman's sexual preference can actually change over time.

This is not to say that it's a choice, but to put it simplistically - like, utterly, ridiculously simply - have you ever had a food that for years you had an aversion to, then one day you decide to try it and you like it? Tastes change.

This idea doesn't surprise me in the least. My own sporadic research into the subject, along with human anectdote has left me open to the idea of fluid sexuality for some time.

What surprised me about the article and the study is the seeming assumption that it is women that have this fluid sexuality and that men remain static.

Richard Lippa, a professor of psychology at California State University who has done a series of studies on sexual orientation, says most men are strongly attracted to one sex or the other —they have a preferred sex and an unpreferred sex.

But “there are more shades of grey to women’s attraction,” he says. Women, he says, tend to have a preferred sex and less preferred sex. Women are much more likely than men to report some degree of same-sex attraction.

I'd have to wonder how much of this binary is related to societal perception and acceptance of homoerotic behaviour in men as opposed to that in women. It seems a common occurence that over the last decade or two a women can engage in homosexual behaviour, call it 'experimentation' and still identify as straight.

However, on the flipside of that coin, the opinion expressed that any homosexual behaviour in men and societially speaking, they're gay, gay, ever so gay. Even in some cases of unconsensual (ie. jailhouse) sex, this is considered to be true. Men who 'come out' late in life are generally assumed to have been repressing their 'true' sexuality.

Taking a social constructionist view on things, I'd be interested to know if these researchers have considered prevailing social roles and conditioning as a factor in the perceived difference between the 'fluid' female spectrum of sexuality and the 'static' binary of male sexuality. Could it be that males report a distinct 'preferred' and 'unpreferred' gender because from the youngest of age, society discourages any sort of admission of homoerotic leanings, unless of course one is ready to 'go big or go home' and fully live up to the typical all-out gay stereo type? That, where women for the last couple decades at least have been allowed to express to certain extent at least a passing fascination with our sisters? Women have been allowed a middle-ground, where in males, this possibility of a middle-ground has all but been stomped to shit.

Something to ponder, anyway. Thoughts?

Prozac Nation - Not a Movie Review... just so we're clear..

Today, a friend/co-worker of mine posted quite an interesting article outlining one man's struggle to get off anti-depressant medication after a number of years.

Read The Full Article

The article raises some interesting questions regarding the use of SSRI's for treating clinical depression, the main ones being (based on my interpretation of the article):

• If someone is medicated for depression is it necessary to be medicated for life?
• Does the use of anti-depressants actually inhibit the body's ability to deal with stress?

I had many intelligent and well thought out ideas to share on the subject, but it's late and I have to take my child for dental surgery tomorrow, so I'll likely keep this shorter than planned.

I am neither pro- or anti- medication. I have heard the argument that taking medication for depression is like a diabetic taking insulin.. you have a condition, you have to take care of it. Now, I think this is a fantastic argument for removing the stigma involved in being on anti-depressants. However, as far as an argument for whether or not to medicate someone who suffers from depression, it is faulty because it runs on the argument that all depression is biological in nature. I would argue that although it can be based on chemical imbalances in the brain, in many cases there are environmental influences that can only be treated through personal awareneness, psychoanalysis and cognitive therapy.

An example from my own life: Around the time my marriage ended, I sought counselling as, understandably, being not only on my own for the first time in six years, but pregnant and raising a toddler as well, I was understandably not in a good place. Stemming from a life-long tendency towards being hyper-sensitive and quick to upset, it had been suggested by a few loved ones that perhaps I was clinically depressed. From the counsellor I was referred to a psychiatrist for an assessment. Some unknown force smiled on me that day, because the psychiatrist, having done his appraisal, basically looked me in the eye and (in slightly more professional wording) said "I don't think you need medication. Your life sucks right now. Of course you're depressed. Who wouldn't be? If life improves and you still feel like this, then come back and we'll talk about medication."

Guess what? Life improved (with hard work) and so did I. The question of medication hasn't come up since then.

The problem is what is called 'diagnosis based on response to medication'. This is when a doctor (as mentioned in the article, many anti-depressants are prescribed by physicians, not psychiatrists) prescribes an anti-depressant to a patient, and if the patient responds positively to the medication he/she can then say 'well, then I guess it was depression'. But my question is, if an anti-depressant is supposed to even out a chemical imbalance in the brain then what happens if the anti-depressant is prescribed to someone who is not actually clinically depressed, but is simply depressed because they've been dealt a shite hand as of late? Would that not, theoretically, cause an imbalance in an otherwise healthy brain? This also is a situation that I've seen with a friend who was down, and was prescribed meds and shortly after seemed to go a little batshit crazy.

The litany of side-effects that I have heard through literature, as well as through personal anectdotes from friends and family who have experienced going through anti-depressant withdrawal, is all the more reason that diagnosis based on response to medication is such a problematic issue. By playing guessing-games with medication-based therapy, doctors and psychiatrists put patients at risk of a worse situation than they arrived in, especially if the case is where no actual chemical imbalance was present previous to the introduction of medication.

There are definitely people out there who require full-time medication in order to function, and this I do not deny. There are also a subclass who may require medicating in the short-term, if only to bring them to an emotional level that will allow them to deal with their issues through counselling and therapy. I should mention, that I think it's rare that any case of depression can be solved through medication alone. There should generally always, in my humble, non-psychiatrist opinion, be some type of cognitive therapy involved, if at all possible.