Completely Normal

A family member and I were recently discussing our shared reaction to people who excuse unhealthy or toxic relationships by saying, "But we really love each other!" She and I disagree on many things, but on this she said, "We are so totally on the same page. All that I can ever think to say to that is, 'So?' or 'And...?'" Yet so many people deliver the "but we love each other" statement as though it is their trump card, their "get out of jail free" card. After all, what could someone possibly say or do that could defeat their love?

Defeat it, no; that's in their own hands. Dismiss or disregard it - yes, indeed. Volumes can and have been written about the thousands of factors that are vastly more important. Yes, more important than whether you love someone. There are those who think that this sounds like heresy. Yet, what would you say to a teen whose boyfriend beats her or threatens her with a knife? A wife whose husband sells her sexual "services" without her consent? To a child whose parent starves them or locks them in a closet? Maybe you're physically safe, but your partner belittles and mocks the majority of what you say and do, or controls all of the money or makes all of the decisions. Maybe all of those people truly love the one harming them; does that make it OK?

Another one of those trump card statements that people pull out as though it is the last and final word is, "But it's perfectly natural" or, "It's totally normal." Again, I find myself thinking and saying, "So? And...?"

Let's think about bodily waste for a moment. Your body - the body of any living thing - is designed to rid itself of waste. This is not only normal, natural, and determined by biology and therefore nonnegotiable, it's beneficial. If your body can't eliminate waste, it dies. People spend time hooked up to dialysis machines when their body's ability to filter and excrete waste breaks down precisely because without medical intervention, they will die.

Now let's think about babies. When they're tiny, their bodies excrete waste whenever it's done processing it, no matter where the baby is or what else is going on. We put them in special garments to contain the mess, and clean them repeatedly through the day. We are clear on the fact that this is necessary.

Before those children can consistently feed themselves, bathe themselves, dress themselves, brush their own teeth or communicate in complete sentences, we expect them to start regulating that waste removal process. We expect them to wait until a more appropriate time and place to pass their waste. We take away the special garments. We direct them to the rooms and fixtures set up specifically to handle waste. We make it clear that we expect them to wait for the appropriate time and place even when it's inconvenient or uncomfortable, even if they're tired, even if they don't want to.

Most children are not happy about this. It confuses them. It upsets and angers them. Why can't they keep doing it the way they've always done it? It was so much easier for them! And their parents never cared before - why do they care now? Sometimes it's so hard to wait! Sometimes they don't want to stop what they're doing; they want to wait until later. Why can't they? It's so mean of their parents to expect this and then be upset if the child does it the way they always have!

Keep in mind, they're not doing anything "bad." Their bodies must eliminate this waste. It's biology. It's necessary! And yet the adults want to put rules on it. It seems so unfair. Yet every adult will insist on this. Every child, except the extremely physically infirm, will leave diapers behind and learn to use a toilet, even when it's inconvenient or uncomfortable. How would we feel about an able bodied teen or an adult who wore diapers just because they wanted to avoid the inconvenience of toilets, and do it the way they did when they were born, the way all other living creatures do it, whenever and wherever the urge strikes - the natural way?

While they're still small, and increasingly as they get older, we expect more compliance. You will wear clothes when you leave the house. You'll be quiet sometimes when you don't want to be, because it's convenient for others. Many times when you're young, your parents will insist on things that you don't want, understand or agree with. But, the older you get, the more you will start to practice actual self control.

You will start to realize that there's reasons behind the controls you're asked to impose on yourself. You realize that, even though food is necessary to sustain life, that does not mean that you can eat whatever you want, whenever you want, in whatever quantities that you want. You become aware that, even if you're sincerely hungry, that doesn't mean that anything goes. Hunger is normal, eating is normal - in fact, essential - but there should be limits. We'd all love to eat anything we wanted - that feeling is totally normal - but we don't.

Even if you're not religious, think about those "seven deadly sins." Take sloth. How long would you last at your job if you didn't show up any time you'd had a bad night with little sleep? You're sincerely tired, maybe through no fault of your own (kept awake by a child, illness, noisy neighbors); your work may well be compromised. It's completely normal to want to roll over and go back to sleep - we've all been there - but you know that you have to show up. You know, too, that you don't get to pick and choose tasks. You can't say, "I'm only going to do things that I enjoy doing," at work or at home.

How about wrath? We're all clear on the fact that anger, no matter how justified, also cannot be simply set loose. You shouldn't engage in vigilante justice, revenge killings, drive by shootings, beatings. Even if your child or spouse or boss has done something infuriating, there are correct and incorrect ways to respond, and it's up to you to choose correctly. Even if someone has been fired, or killed, or hit by a car, or raped, or mugged, or deceived, or cheated, or anything else, that does not remove the controls you should put on yourself. We all know this. Those feelings are normal, but we control them.

We know, too, that it's not just actions, but words that we need to control. Just because something occurs to us, or is true, or would get a laugh, or is justified does not mean that we should say it. Irreparable harm can come from a totally unbridled mouth. From the time we're very small, we expect others to watch their words, and we learn to watch our own, through painful trial and error.

Greed is a little trickier, because society tends to applaud the pursuit of money, goods and status as being "ambitious" and good. We're all born greedy. Still, what if someone said to you, "I've been like this ever since I can remember. I remember being in diapers and not being happy unless I could take toys from the other children. I didn't want the toy; I just didn't want them to have it. I've never been happy unless I had more than the next guy. I'm always trying to figure out how to end up on top, how to charge more without delivering more. I try to stop, but it just sneaks in. Besides, it doesn't hurt anybody; I mean, anybody smart. If I can take advantage of someone, it's because they're not very smart. This is just how I am. I think it would be denying my true nature, not to mention futile, to try to be something I'm not." This is how we end up with the Bernie Madoffs of the world, not to mention every ruler or royal who ever funded a lavish lifestyle at the expense of the citizens that they govern. Most of us can still agree that this behavior, while natural and understandable, is wrong.

Violence, murder, spitefulness, taking unfair advantage, oppression, selfishness, bullying - the list of natural human traits, behavior that has persisted since the dawn of time, is huge. Yet we all seem to agree that these qualities should not be fed or embraced.

Let's go back to that recently toilet trained child to look at envy. Just about the same time that Mom and Dad have imposed all kinds of new rules and requirements - use the toilet, eat with silverware, say please, wait your turn - they also bring home a new baby. The baby does nothing but lie there, scream, eat and create messy diapers, but Mom and Dad just LOVE the new baby. So does everyone else. It's not fair! Why isn't anyone telling Preschooler how adorable they are just because they exist? Why does Preschooler have to wait for dinner, without even a snack, but the baby gets to eat every time it screams? Why is Dad's lap always full of the baby? Why does Preschooler have to use the toilet and sleep alone, but Baby doesn't?

It is completely normal that Preschooler will resent the baby. It is normal that they might want to hurt the baby, or that they will beg Mom and Dad to "send it back."  Almost every child in history has felt this way, and those born in the future will, as well. Yet, every adult knows, Preschooler cannot be allowed to act on those feelings; nor will Mom and Dad give in to the pleading, no matter how angry, outraged or unloved Preschooler feels because of their refusal.

(Many times, I picture the relationship God has with humanity looking a lot like the relationship parents have with small children. There are so many stupid rules, and they make no sense! Things would be so much better if we could just do it our way! How can God possibly know something that we don't? We're smart! He must not love us. He must be mean. If we could only do it our way, everything would be great, because doing it His way is stupid.)

Few things are as tedious as someone who never grows out of this sibling envy stage. Feelings that are totally understandable and justifiable when you're 3 or 4 look ridiculous on you when you're 15 or 16. Get to be 20 or 30 and still whine about, "Why are Mom and Dad so excited about Sister's promotion? They didn't say anything when I was promoted last year!" and I not only find you to be tedious and silly, but I tend to discount my assessment of your judgment and general maturity.

For some reason, we collectively tend to lose our minds a little bit when it comes to our sex lives, though. Too many of us seem to have no perspective.

There's those who find sex acts of any kind to be immoral, wrong, tawdry, indicative of lack of morals or character. That's silly. Whether you believe in God or not, the idea that the only way to perpetuate the species would be something wrong and forbidden, something we should not engage in, flies in the face of reason. This is why I don't agree with the idea that those who truly devote themselves to God and His purposes, or enlightenment in general, will be lifelong celibates. That's like saying that if we as a species truly devote ourselves either to God or to higher consciousness, the race will die out in a single generation.

Once when I said that to someone, they said, "That's because everyone isn't supposed to devote themselves to God. Only a few people will ever be asked to do that." That still seems silly to me. Maybe it's because I belong to a religion with no paid clergy. All adult members are expected to take their turn in leadership roles, without pay, throughout their lives. Even if this were not the case, the idea that the most spiritual, most dedicated of us should not have or raise children seems very odd.

Then there's the opposite extreme, people who promote promiscuity because "it's normal!" They find the mere idea that humans should be selective about their mating to be ridiculous and doomed. We're hardwired to mate with a large assortment of partners in order to guarantee numerous and healthy offspring, they say. It's millenia of evolution at work, and you can't fight it without facing futility and frustration. Why try? I don't buy this reasoning with regard to porn, either; don't tell me how it's existed throughout history. So has slavery, premeditated murder, con artists... you get the idea.

I'm always annoyed by promiscuous or straying men (or women) who become indignant when their partners leave them. They're just doing what comes naturally! It's normal! What is she so upset about?

"She knew what I was like before we got married," he might say. A man who thinks this way is ignoring two things. One: women are programmed to expect that, when they meet "the one," he will leave his tomcatting ways behind because of his love for her. Look through our culture's books and movies if you think I'm making that up. Two: very, very rarely have these men ever explicitly said, "I do not intend to be faithful." If they have, yeah, they can be annoyed if their partners get upset. If they're just functioning on the "she should know, because it's common knowledge" theory, they're not being honest with their partners or themselves, and they're behaving stupidly. Cards on the table, folks, always.

If monogamy is not important to you, only date or marry people who do not value monogamy. Or, resign yourself to living in a way that you find unnatural, because it's best for the relationship. No whining about what's "normal" or "natural."

It's a radical thought, based on the reactions I've seen, to believe, as I do, that sexual behavior is to be encouraged and enjoyed, even applauded, but only with one's spouse. There are those who don't bat an eye at people who have sex exclusively with stuffed animals, or with food, but find me to be bizarre. I find that reaction amusing.

Don't point out animal behavior to me in defense of yourself, either. You are not any of the species to which you are referring. We've all grown up watching dogs try to mate with human legs, furniture or toys. I do not feel that I, myself, need to say, "Well, if they've been doing it for centuries, it's normal behavior. I think I'm going to start mounting furniture, and claim that others are squeamish, prudish, anti sex, anti pleasure and repressive if they don't like it." I'm not going to start humping my husband's leg because schnauzers do it.

Personally, I have no quarrel with those who say that homosexuality is natural (as in, ocurring throughout time and across species). Still, from an evolutionary standpoint, it does not perpetuate the species or contribute to survival of the fittest by passing on genes. From a traditional Judeo-Christian religious view, it's scripturally condemned. Neither of those things are affected by whether it's natural.

I frequently face people who tell me that it's just wrong, repressive, manipulative, unenlightened and any other negative thing you can think of to go against, try to change or try to mitigate something natural, normal or inborn. I just don't get it. Aside from all those behavioral examples I just went through, how about physical things, things people are born with? Have you ever cut your hair? Do you trim your nails? Do you bathe? Do you wear clothing? Then you've tampered with the natural order. You've decided that the way your body is naturally is not necessarily desirable.

Do you wear makeup? Have you ever had braces on your teeth? Colored your hair? Then you're altering the way God or nature made you.

If your child was born with cleft palate or club foot, would you choose to have it fixed? If you are a Christian Scientist, or otherwise do not believe in any medical intervention, believing whatever happens to be God's will, I'll understand if you lecture me on not tampering with God's will (or Mother Nature or whatever other force you believe is most important). If you're an average person, and OK with tooth brushing, filling cavities, setting broken bones, taking antibiotics, using crutches and curling or braiding hair, I'm not really going to understand where you're coming from.

I've had pretty extensive surgery in the last two years, first to remove a diseased thyroid gland, and then to rebuild the bone structure in my feet. No one told me that since God made me, I was just perfect as I was, and I should simply embrace my bunions and collapsed arches. No one said that it was morally wrong, and setting myself up as a judge, to remove my thyroid. I didn't get lectures on the natural order of things when I had my tonsils out, or when I got glasses. No one said, "You don't need those! You are perfect just the way you are, and you should be proud of your astigmatism!" To the contrary, most people ask me why I don't switch to contacts or get lasik surgery.

ADD, ADHD, diabetes, hypoglycemia, depression, schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, autism and more are all caused by body chemistry and determined, to a large extent, by your genetics. Nobody ever says, "Well, God wouldn't have put the voices in your head if you weren't supposed to heed them." We find it anywhere from unwise to criminal for someone to say that they will not address or treat any of these conditions in any way, or that they are God's will, or to say that humans shouldn't tamper with nature.

Given all that, I am beyond puzzled when anyone says, as someone did to me recently, during a disagreement about acceptable behavior, "Scientists have identified the gene/brain chemistry/etc that causes that!" as though I will immediately say, "Well, that settles it, then. If there's a physical cause, it must be desirable."

It's OK if we disagree about some of these things, or, heck, even if we disagree on everything. Each of us will one day have to account to God for what we do, but you don't answer to me and I don't answer to you. If you don't believe in God or in a Judgement Day, there's even less reason for us to be involved in each other's beliefs and choices, since our concern for each other's happiness will not affect eternal life. Just please understand that telling me how normal or natural something is not only does not end an argument, it doesn't even advance it. It's a non-issue.

All I'll be thinking is, "So?" Or maybe, "And...?"

Phrases That Irritate

Today, we're going to talk about phrases that really annoy me. I hear them frequently, and I take exception to them, every time.

"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."

We've all heard that one. Maybe we've even said it. It's not true. Remember, first, that everyone who "does" - every surgeon, painter, musician, teacher, parent - learned from someone. Sometimes it's by watching another's example, or by examining their work, or by formal instruction. Sometimes, they learn how to be better at what they do, and sometimes, they learn what to avoid, but none would be who they are without teachers.

People who choose to teach professionally truly love what they do. They wouldn't bother otherwise.

When Tom Hanks thanked his high school acting teacher while accepting an Academy Award, it was an amazing moment.

More recently, Kristin Chenoweth graciously shared her stage, and her applause, with a teacher. The video went viral.

Teachers do, every day.

"It's perfectly natural. How can you say that something natural is wrong?"

Almost three years ago, I wrote this in a blog post: "I'm tired of hearing about what is 'normal.' Cancer is normal. It's afflicted humans (and animals) throughout history. All disease, filth, decay and death is normal. Does that mean that we elevate it to the status of desirable?"

Behaviorally, selfishness, greed and violence are natural. Birth defects and mental illness are naturally occurring, most times dictated in utero by body chemistry. They are not dictated by a person's choices or actions. Yet, no one would ever say to a schizophrenic, "Well, you wouldn't have the voices in your head unless you were supposed to embrace them." I want to know if things are beneficial, not whether or not they're natural.

The blog post I just quoted was about bullying, but a family member and I recently had this same conversation about monogamy. (She believes that monogamy is completely unnatural, but extremely desirable and beneficial.) There are many other areas in which it applies equally. "Natural" or "normal" is many times immaterial.

"Since I don't have a uterus (or vagina), I don't get to have an opinion."

I've seen this frequently lately, and I've seen people applaud it. I can't imagine why. This is a sibling sentiment to, "Not in my back yard." It says, "As long as it doesn't affect me personally, I don't care." That's appalling. When people are indifferent to the suffering of others, we decry the idea that it's OK not to care as long as you yourself aren't affected. So why would it be OK in this case, or any case?

More to the point: I do not have a penis, and I never will, but I have very clear ideas about what someone who has one should, and should not, do with it. There are definite rules about when and where its owner should use it. There are acts that it should never participate in.

Chief among these "don'ts" are rape and pedophilia. Virtually everyone agrees that these things are wrong, whether they personally have a penis or not. This consensus is generally accepted to be a good thing. One reason for this is that those acts affect another person besides the owner of the offending penis, people who do not always get a choice in what that penis does.

The above statement is usually used in discussions about either birth control or abortion. These things also affect more than one person. Birth control is only necessary when a man and a woman engage in sexual activity with each other. One plus one equals two people. Abortion is only an issue when a pregnancy has resulted; one plus one plus one equals three people. (This, of course, leaves out siblings, grandparents, and extended family and society at large - the same kinds of people who are affected by sexual assault.) I do not think that the man's opinion, or the opinion of other family or citizens, outweighs the woman's in these decisions, but I think that they certainly do - or should - factor in. Then there's the fact that, with an abortion, the child will be the individual most affected, and we cannot ask them to weigh in. This is true whether you believe that the fetus is a full fledged person, or whether you think that it is potential only. It exists.

I do use birth control, but that is a joint decision that my husband and I make together. I do think that there are circumstances in which abortion would be acceptable, but I think that those circumstances are few and far between.

I also think that, even in circumstances in which abortion would be acceptable or understandable, it is not necessarily the only correct choice. Amanda Berry has reason, if ever anyone had one, not to want to bear a rapist's child. Yet she, and her family, consider the existence of her daughter to be the one good thing that resulted from Amanda's captivity. Bearing and raising such a child is not easy, but I am sure that Amanda feels that it's worth it. Jaycee Dugard's biggest fear in reuniting with her family after 18 years in captivity was whether or not they'd accept her daughters, because "I would never leave my children." They are hers, regardless of the genetic contribution of a man who is both a rapist and a pedophile.

I know many adoptive parents; they, too, are glad that someone did for them what they could not do for themselves, and carried and delivered their child (or children).

"He's a good father and a good provider. Isn't that enough?"

No. It isn't. Honestly. It's a good start, but it is not everything needed to be a good husband. A good dad, maybe, but that's a different job description. That's like saying, "Bob is a great mechanic, so he's obviously an excellent automobile designer (or manufacturer or assembly line worker or driver)." They might be related fields, but they are not the same.

"Love is all you need."

I wrote an entire post about this. It's like a politician's promise - it sounds good, but it fails to hold water.

Tune in next time for more Phrases That Irritate. There are more out there.