Song Stories: Life To The Full

Over the past number of weeks, I've been telling some stories from the Life To The Full EP, the latest album that I've written. Today, I'll be talking about the title track. As usual, the lyrics are copied below as a reference.

I used to mask all day thinking it was a better way

So you couldn't see the chaos inside me

But I didn't have the spoons to keep up the subterfuge

Had to realise the truth that I see

Can't live just a half-life

I used to think that I was limited in my

Ways I could love but now I know that

I'm limitless and you can't keep me down, it's true

Because your words they keep falling flat

Can't live just a half-life

No I cannot live a lie 

And I'm not going to be a fool, gonna live life to the full

There's no other way that I could live now

Being real to who I am but you don't give a damn

Well I'm not playing by your rules, gonna live life to the full

And now I know I'm free to live life true to me

Not trying to fit this square through circles

There's still wars to fight but at least they feel right

Not trying to be a hare instead of turtle

Musically, this one was a lot of fun. I was playing around with a fun progression on the guitar, and I think this is one where I did the lyrics at least partially via something I call "through-writing"; which is basically where I play out the progression, and just start singing and making stuff up as I go, and then writing it down afterwards, or in bits and pieces. I've written a few songs like this over the years, particularly on guitar, but occasionally even just singing them out a cappella and figuring out the music later.

Lyrically, there are so many things that have been condensed into the one song, so I'm going to need to break it down bit by bit.

I used to mask all day thinking it was a better way

So you couldn't see the chaos inside me

But I didn't have the spoons to keep up the subterfuge

Had to realise the truth that I see

This is referring at least in part to autism, though it's also true about the other differences within me. Neurodiverse folks will be familiar with the references to both masking and spoons here. But yeah - I grew up hiding a fair bit, and masking a fair bit. And it took me time to realise that that wasn't healthy for me, and to grow I needed to live authentically to who I was. Doing that with autism started back about seven years ago, though I've been learning more and more over the last few years particularly as I've connected in to neurodiverse content creators and ND folks on social media. But it's only very recently that that's happened with sexuality, or gender identity, or relationship type. Which is where I start to go in the second verse.

I used to think that I was limited in my

Ways I could love but now I know that

I'm limitless and you can't keep me down, it's true

Because your words they keep falling flat

I grew up, as I've noted a few times before, in a Christian background that wasn't affirming of queer people or queer relationships. Heterosexual monogamous relationship was presented as the only form of legitimate relationship; the only form of romantic and sexual love that was okay. But that never made sense. Love was limitless, love was infinite. Why would it be constrained in this way that was arbitrary and constructed? Of course, when I started looking into it more deeply, I realised exactly that - that it was a construct, and the arguments against queer relationships from a Christian/biblical perspective fell flat repeatedly. They didn't stack up with either my real experience with people, or the research that other people have done into the specific verses that might be speaking to these issues. So I moved away from those rules. I moved outside of those boxes. And I found freedom.

And now I know I'm free to live life true to me

Not trying to fit this square through circles

There's still wars to fight but at least they feel right

Not trying to be a hare instead of turtle

One of the messages that you can get in some branches of Christianity is to deny yourself. To deny your own desires, your own impulses, your own thoughts or feelings; and to instead seek God, and their desires, etc. But this actually feels quite toxic, and opposite of what the Bible talks about. The Bible talks about us being made in the image of God, and God's spirit dwelling within us. As such, many of these desires that we are feeling within ourselves - can very much be interpreted as coming from God. It doesn't mean they all are, and it doesn't mean that we can't have bad desires. But interpreting our desires as unilaterally bad, or sinful, or things to be put aside - is extremely unhelpful.

As I started listening to myself, my own instincts, and what God had put within me, created in me - I was able to live authentically to myself. To live true to who I am. Which is a lot easier than trying to live as something else. The world has a way of being built for certain types of people; religious communities even more so. Trying to be a round peg in a square hole is not fun. But living authentically, and particularly being "out", to use that phraseology, enables me to find and utilise spaces that are meant for me. And finding those communities has been invaluable over the last year. I've found many people with stories that resonate with me, and people that are like me.

Living true to yourself, though, doesn't mean that all the problems go away. And it doesn't mean that you stop fighting for what is right. But your idea of what is right changes and shifts. Christianity of late has been somewhat defined by fighting against things like abortion, homosexual marriage, and even getting embroiled in things like immigration, vaccines, or if you're in America, gun policy. That's always left a rather bitter taste in my mouth. So I'm grateful to now be fighting for something that feels right, and feels good.

"Hare instead of turtle" was a clunkier line that I threw in because I didn't have a good rhyme; it sort of fits, but not as well as I'd like. It's certainly a sentiment I've had many times, of trying to keep up in fast-paced environments while feeling more like a turtle; but that doesn't relate particularly to the thrust of the song (though it does connect back to neurodiversity).

And I'm not going to be a fool, gonna live life to the full

There's no other way that I could live now

Being real to who I am but you don't give a damn

Well I'm not playing by your rules, gonna live life to the full

All of this comes back to John 10:10, a rather well-known verse in Christian circles. "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." (NIV) Life to the full, abundant life, is what is promised by Jesus. Not a half-life. Not a shadow of life. Abundant life. Life to the full.

That life can only be lived (I would argue) by living authentically. Living as someone else, or living as only part of yourself, isn't a life to the full. And now having experienced living authentically - there's no other way that I could live. It's really, really amazing and wonderful, and I absolutely love it. I can be real, and true, to who I am, and who I was made to be. And other people will disagree, and other people will argue, or not care what I say; well, you can choose the rules that you live your lives by. But you don't get to choose the rules for my life. I'm living mine to the full.

Can't live just a half-life

No I cannot live a lie

I can't live just a half-life; knowing what is possible, knowing what is real and true, and not living into that. I can't pretend. I cannot live a lie. The truth is hard. And the truth can hurt. And it has. But I believe that lies would hurt more. That playing pretend, and masking, and living a shadow-life, will hurt more. Of course, that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong. But that's what I think.

For now - I'm grateful to be living this life. A life to the full. An abundant life.

We're coming to the end of the song stories for this EP. There are only two left, and the last two won't have quite the same depth that the last couple have. But I hope you've enjoyed what I've had to share so far.

Polyamory and Christianity.

Today I'm going to attempt to look at polyamory (and, more broadly speaking, ethical non-monogamy) in the context of Christianity and the Bible. Specifically, I suppose, looking at the main arguments against polyamory from a biblical perspective - and why I think they fall flat. I will be restricting myself to only the biblical arguments within this blog post, because also covering the moral or ethical arguments would be much too lengthy for one post, and this will probably definitely be long enough. I'm also talking specifically about the overlap of Christianity and ethical non-monogamy; if you want to pursue ethical non-monogamy or whatever else you like but have no interest in Christianity, then that's completely different! I'm talking here about the rules that (theoretically, anyway) apply to Christians. Christian folks attempting to apply those same rules to non-Christians is not on, for various reasons (but that's another blog post!).

I will note that I'm writing as someone that was brought up in the Christian church, taught the arguments for monogamy time and again, that even went to Bible college and learned quite a bit about how to study and understand the Bible. I am not, however, a Bible scholar, and I don't pretend to be. I'm drawing on the knowledge that I have and the research that I've done (and the research that others have done), but that is far from complete.

Before we start, some definitions.

Monogamy is the practice of being married to one partner only. It typically also means being exclusive with that partner romantically and sexually.

Ethical non-monogamy (or ENM) is an umbrella term for various ethical ways of having more than one partner romantically and/or sexually. This can include polyamory, open marriage, swinging, relationship anarchy, and other things. It does not include cheating.

Polyamory refers to having (or the desire/willingness to have) multiple romantic partners (that may or may not also be sexual partners). There are various types of polyamory, that can look quite different.

Let's dive into this.

So there are two main issues that come up biblically when we look at polyamory, or indeed, ethical non-monogamy in general. The first is having multiple partners, being non-monogamous. The second is extramarital or premarital sex, or adultery, depending on the specific context. (Of course, for some people that don't have sexual partners this second issue is a moot point. But it does come up for many.) I'll tackle these one at a time. First; non-monogamy.

Most modern Christians and churches will say that monogamy is the golden standard of relationship presented by the Bible. The main biblical points they will use to argue this will be:

 - this is the obvious design of God with Adam and Eve as depicted in Genesis 

 - Jesus clearly supported this "one man, one woman" design for relationship

 - other relationships that are not monogamous in the Bible are clearly problematic and end up badly

Let's start with Genesis. The main points given here (by traditional Christians) are the fact that God created only Adam and Eve, thus establishing the model for all romantic/sexual relationships (heterosexual monogamy), and that this is confirmed specifically by Gen 2:24, "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh." [NRSV] First, it is making quite the assumption that because this is the first romantic/sexual relationship, it is setting the standard and model for all such relationships. Some would argue that this is exactly what 2:24 specifies, but it does not; it only says that Adam recognised Eve as made of his flesh, and so felt connected to her; and thus, in a similar way, the author notes, in our marriages now (the now as the author writes), when a man and a woman come together, they also become "one flesh". It is not a commentary on other forms of relationship, nor a prescription against them. It's a commentary on marriage at the time.

Secondly, most Christians acknowledge that the creation story outlined in the first chapters of Genesis is not necessarily meant to be taken all literally as written. That's not the point of these verses and this story - things like arguing over where dinosaurs fit into the seven days of creation or whether they're a literal seven days or if they're seven ages distract from the focus and intent of the passage. Saying things like, "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve", or that Adam didn't have multiple partners also distracts from the point. The creation story (arguably) is meant to speak to a few key points - the nature of God and who God is, the relationship of God to people, and the significance of humanity within creation. Now, can other points be drawn from these passages? Of course. But trying to say that the Genesis story is supposed to establish a pattern for the rest of time and all people is arguably taking it outside of the intent of the passage. (Though one pattern that is perhaps interesting is Adam choosing the partner that was right for him in Genesis 2. In the same way, perhaps we are free and able to choose what partner or partners are right for us? But I digress.) Just because something is the first thing, doesn't mean that it's trying to establish a pattern for everything.

So, as a summary of the Genesis argument - the creation story isn't written as a guide to marital, sexual, or romantic relationships. It contains and demonstrates one, yes, and a comparison is made to other such relations of the same kind at the time of writing - but this isn't meant to be a commandment or clear instruction on the only way to do relationship (and the Jews themselves certainly didn't interpret it this way, as we'll look at in the third argument).

Next, Jesus. Strangely enough, Jesus talked about relationships and marriage rather infrequently. We can find five points in the gospels when Jesus addresses the point directly (Matthew 5:31-32, 19:3-12, Mark 10:2-12, Luke 16:18, 20:27-40), but all of these centre around the singular issue of divorce. Depending on the circumstance, this may or may not be relevant to ethical non-monogamy; but neither divorce nor marriage are specifically required to engage in it. Traditional Christians will note here particularly the Matthew 19 passage, where Jesus refers back to the Genesis 2:24 passage, and seems to establish this as the norm, or the expectation. Yet, again, all Jesus is doing is speaking to the time - and, once more, talking only about monogamous marriage. He isn't talking about relationships outside of marriage at all (romantic, sexual, or otherwise). The end part of the Matthew 19 passage is also rather interesting. It says this: 

His disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”  

[Matthew 19:10-12, NRSV, my emphasis] 

Jesus specifically says that these words are not for everyone. That people are different. He talks here about eunuchs, which in the context of the time were men who had been castrated; but people more recently have drawn parallels to people of different genders (a good spot to point out that there are actually six genders in the original Jewish). Regardless, the point is clear that this is not intended to be the case and rule for all people and all times, and Jesus himself says so. So, again, this is not useful to us here.

To summarise - yes, Jesus spoke to relationships. But only to married relationships, and divorce, which is not relevant to many people practicing ethical non-monogamy; and Jesus also says specifically that these words are not for all people.

So, lastly, other relationships in the Bible. Traditional Christians will generally say that monogamy is established in the Bible as the norm for relationships, and that other types of relationships present in the Bible are rife with problems and clearly demonstrate the error of these relationships. The most frequent example given here is Solomon, who had hundreds of wives and concubines, and started turning away from God. So let's start there, shall we?

The clear passage that refers to this is 1 Kings 11:1-13 (there isn't a clear parallel passage in 2 Chronicles), where the number of Solomon's wives and concubines are noted, and it's said that "his wives turned away his heart." [1 Kings 11:3b NRSV] How did they do this, though? "For when Solomon was old, his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not true to the Lord his God, as was the heart of his father David." [1 Kings 11:4 NRSV] They caused him to follow other gods, because that's what they did. And he started to make sacrifices to other gods, and build altars to them, and this is what the Bible takes issue with. Solomon following other gods, because his wives tempted him to doing so. But it's not the fact that Solomon had multiple wives that has done this - it's that those wives are from other countries, other faiths, have different practices and beliefs that are opposite to his own. (I'll note, I don't think this passage means you shouldn't have a relationship with people from other backgrounds or faiths, but that's a separate issue to speak to at another time.) This issue would have arisen if Solomon had one wife, a dozen, or hundreds. Yes, having multiple wives may compound that issue (because the peer pressure multiplies), but it doesn't create it.

How about we look at a couple more relationships in the Bible that weren't monogamous? Take David, for instance. Yes, King David. Depending on how you want to count, he had probably at least seven wives, and quite possibly more (besides concubines). 1 Chronicles 3 gives us a nice count of Ahinoam, Abigail, Maacah, Haggith, Abital, Eglah, and Bathsheba (here called Bath-shua). It does seem to miss out Saul's daughter Michal, sadly. Now, depending on exact timelines, this could instead be a case of serial monogamy (marrying, divorcing, remarrying, repeat); but we don't really have any record of David divorcing any of his wives in the text. Do we have instances of David turning away from God? Why, yes, quite stunningly, with him taking another man's wife and making her pregnant and then having her husband killed so that he could marry her himself. Is that something that was, in any way, caused or brought on by David having multiple wives or partners? Er......no. That's just David having way too many things going to his head and then trying repeatedly to cover up his shit.

How about Jacob, then? Or Israel, as they were later known. Literally the father of the nation. Two wives, Leah and Rachel. Now, to be fair, Jacob was tricked into having two wives (which is rather amusing, considering that he was one for trickery himself). Were there issues with having multiple wives here? Oh, yes. But mostly because they were each fighting to give Jacob sons, and Rachel didn't have any of her own for quite some time. Having multiple wives didn't "lead Jacob astray" in any sense that we can see.

And there are many other relationships in the Bible that are non-monogamous. There are certainly plenty that are unhealthy, and not okay; but there are perhaps just as many monogamous relationships in the Bible that are unhealthy and not okay. It's also worth noting that many of these non-monogamous relationships wouldn't fall under ethical non-monogamy as we'd think about it today (though, to be fair, ethical non-monogamy as we know it today is a relatively new idea). Of course, it's important to remember that ideas like consent didn't really exist back then - or at least, not as we know it. It existed for men; and men also gave consent on behalf of their wives and daughters. It's why many of the laws in the Old Testament around rape of women refer back to their husband or father being compensated, or giving out the punishment. There was very much a sense of ownership that existed, which (thank goodness) we don't have today. But these are issues for another time. The point remains, though, that monogamous relationships are not all that we see occur in the Bible; that many such relationships existed without the Bible passing negative comment on the non-monogamous nature of those relationships; and that the Israelites did not evidently interpret the Genesis passage as being prohibitive of these relationships.

In summary of all of that - when the Bible speaks to sexual and romantic relationships, it's almost exclusively talking in the world of marriage, and what should be done in that context. It provides little or no instruction on what should occur outside of that context, and provides no real framework for romantic relationships outside of marriage - but at the same time, does not explicitly condemn or forbid these. The passages in Genesis may speak only of heterosexual monogamous marriage, but this speaks more to what the norm of the time was than what is expected and allowed for all people. Jesus spoke only about divorce, a topic which isn't necessarily relevant to non-monogamous relationships (depending on the individual circumstance), and is its own topic that can be covered another time. Relationships in the Bible were varied and not all monogamous, nor were non-monogamous relationships all cock-ups resulting in terrible and sinful behaviour.

"But what about sex outside of marriage?" the traditional Christian cries. "The Bible certainly forbids that!" Noting, first, that polyamorous relationships do not require people to be having sex, and that there are people in non-sexual polyamorous relationships for various reasons (perhaps because of being asexual, or simply by choice) - let us turn to the question of sex with someone that you are not married to. The Bible may say various things about this, depending on how you wish to define it. Are you talking about sex before being married? Are you talking about sex while you are married, but with people that you are not married to? Are you talking about sex with people that other people are married to, without their permission? That last one is adultery (or cheating), by the way, and not within what we'd call ethical non-monogamy today (because it's not ethical, in case you didn't catch that). The Bible says different things about each of these.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, if you've made it this far, most of the time that the Bible is talking about sex, it's talking about it in the context of marriage. Again, it's speaking to the time it was written. It's telling people that are already married what they should be doing (typically, not having sex with people they aren't married to). It doesn't really say anything to people that aren't married yet, or aren't planning on being married. The possible exception is 1 Corinthians 13, but this is another occasion of folks taking something that was written to a particular group of people, and trying to apply it across to everyone. This article touches on the issue a bit more rather nicely.

We do have this phrase of "sexual immorality" that pops up rather frequently across the New Testament, and traditional Christians will be eager to refer back to it. However, the problem is, the Bible doesn't give us a clear indication of what it means by this phrase. In some places it seems to be talking about adultery/cheating; but in other places, it seems to be talking about something else, because it is listed alongside adultery. So we don't really have a clear picture of what it is, or might include. Well, let's just look at the broader idea of "sexual immorality", then. It's talking about sexual acts, that are immoral. Does ethical non-monogamy fit within that? Arguably, no. Ethical non-monogamy is defined by willing consent and knowledge of all parties involved (exactly what that looks like may change depending on circumstance, but broadly speaking). That's why it's labelled 'ethical'. And, arguably, can also be labelled as 'moral'.

But what about people that are married? Does this mean that they can't have sex or relationships with other people, even with consent of all people involved? This is where it gets a bit trickier. Because the Bible can't really speak to this sort of relationship or dynamic directly - it didn't really exist at the time of writing, because of the issues around consent that we established previously. The situations the Bible seems to speak to are people committing adultery (having sex with other married people without knowledge of the partner), or going to the temple prostitutes (which was also condemned). Having sex with someone that you were not married to, while having the consent of the person that you were married to, just wasn't on the radar. As such, it's difficult to say that the Bible specifically allows it - but it's just as difficult to say that the Bible specifically condemns it.

For myself - I look back to the key ideas and values communicated by the Bible, and see if something is consistent or not with those values. Ethical non-monogamy is centred around consent, speaking to all individuals involved and being on the same page, out of love and respect for these people. Love and respect are both key ideas that come from the Bible, and from the teaching of Jesus in particular. Ethical non-monogamy also involves trust, and communication, and honesty; again, things that are brought to the forefront in Jesus's ministry.

So, surprisingly, we find that the values of ethical non-monogamy are actually quite similar to the values that are prominent in the Bible and Jesus's teachings. We see that the verses talking about what can or can't be done sexually were almost exclusively speaking to married couples, and can't really be applied across to here as much; and that what's actually much more important is active and open consent.

Where does all of this leave us, then? Well, it leaves us without a clear biblical argument against ethical non-monogamy. I'm not going to say it leaves us with a clear argument for it, because that would be taking things out of context. Just like trying to say there's a clear argument against it does. But we can see many values that parallel ethical non-monogamy that are present in the Bible; and I've seen some argue that God is in a polyamorous relationship (with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all in relationship with each other), or that Jesus is in a polyamorous relationship with all people (drawing on the imagery used in the New Testament of Jesus being the bridegroom and the church being the bride). Take or leave these as you will; but trying to say that the Bible commends and approves only heterosexual monogamy as the sole romantic and sexual relationship structure that is compatible with being a Christian is taking much of the Bible out of context, and reading into it our own ideas that we are used to. It's a grandiose claim that just doesn't hold up to scrutiny any more. There's more than one way to do relationship right, with honesty, love, trust, empathy, and care. These aren't exclusive to heterosexual monogamy.

Song Stories: Black And White

Over the last little while, I've been sharing some stories from different songs that I've written; and to start off with, specifically from my Life To The Full EP. I've covered the first three songs on the album over the last month or so, and now we're heading towards the latter half of things. This fourth song is called Black And White. As always, the lyrics are below as a reference.

I am going to heaven, and you are going to hell
Protestants are good but Catholics they fell
God made Adam and Eve, he didn't make Adam and Steve
And if you believe differently to us then you must leave

Black and white, it's not quite right
These lines we've drawn divide us all
Black and white, this is our plight
We say we care but we're not there
Outside the lines

If God is love and truth, then what has gone wrong
Trying to do their job, they've been doing it all along
We think we know God's ways, but we can only guess
Still we think we're right and have been more than blessed

We need to reach outside of these boxes and lines
Start caring about the people we've left on the outside
Isn't that what Jesus did when he was here with us
But crossing over lines still riles you up

From memory, this is another song that started being written on the train to work, though I don't think I finished it in the one train ride. This one took a bit longer. In case you can't tell, the first verse is very much built around these "black-and-white" statements; clear-cut, no middle-ground, no in-between, just this and that's it. And I played around with this idea for the music as well; in the chorus, it goes between two chords - one with all black notes (F# major) and one with all white notes (E minor) on the piano. The verse kinda muddies in-between, hanging on a B minor that is constantly going up to the fourth suspension or down to the second suspension. I had a bit of fun figuring all that sort of thing out.

What the song is about, though, is less fun. Historically, and still today, traditional Christianity (might be true for other religions too, but I'm speaking from my own experience) has been rather black-and-white in its thinking. Heaven, or hell. Saved, or not. Sinful, or not. Good, or evil. Now, the problem isn't so much in saying that these things exist - the problem arises when we try to draw the line between them. Because, inevitably, we get it wrong. We exclude people as "sinners" when they've done nothing wrong, and we tell them they must "repent", when there is nothing they need to repent from.

I could give you examples - but the problem is, the examples keep changing. The line keeps moving, and shifting. And it depends on who you ask, and what church they belong to, and....so, so many things. How do you decide which line is right? Well, some would say that this is where the Bible comes in. The problem is, all these people are already defining these lines by the Bible. And they're still all different, sometimes radically so.

So, what do we do then? Well.....we get rid of the lines. We don't worry about them. Might there be a line that exists? Sure. There could be. But neither of us is going to be able to figure it out. And even if we did, we'd have no way of knowing we're right while we're alive, barring God giving a handy shout to let us know. So, instead - we be kind. I speak to this at further length in this blog post earlier this year; but basically, much of what Jesus was calling us to was not about casting people out. It was not about exclusion. It was not about labelling people as sinful. It was about being caring, and loving, and kind; and particularly, especially, to those that society at large was not being very caring and loving and kind towards.

Now - many Christians will try and say that they are doing this. And they often are in some ways. But it's typically things like caring for the poor, or the sick. And do they need care? Fuck yes, of course they do, and I'm glad they're getting it (though the way that first-world countries provide support to people in third-world countries is perhaps not a barrel of worms to be diving into right now). But these are also people that are now seen as needing support by the wider community. There is a greater thrust behind it from a secular and societal level. But there are many other groups that are not so well-supported - and that the church has been doing a bang-up job of making sure things stay that way. Victims of child molestation or rape; those trying to access abortion; people that are trans, or gender-diverse, or intersex; people that are same-sex attracted, or have multi-gender attraction; people that are aromantic, asexual, or both; people of colour, or those that are black or indigenous; people that have a physical or mental disability; people that are neurodiverse; and I'm sure other folks could think of more examples. These are groups that the church has typically excluded, often by labelling them as sinful, or just not even acknowledging their existence. This is not true of all churches; but trying to find a traditional church that has not excluded any of these groups would be very difficult.

And so again, we need to get rid of our lines. Our ideas of what we think is sinful, or what isn't. That doesn't mean we just throw morality out the window; morality can still exist without those lines. Plenty of folks do so every day. But we stop letting our ideas about what is "sinful" change how we interact with people, and particularly stop us trying to change the behaviour of others. Especially when that behaviour isn't hurting people. As Christians, we seem to like trying to measure everyone up against our own yardstick, and saying that everyone needs to measure themselves by that yardstick too. It makes it very difficult when most Christians' yardsticks are not at all the same length. If you want to measure yourself, and judge your own actions in a particular way - go ahead. It's not particularly healthy and I don't encourage it, but you're free to do that. You're not, however, free to do that to others. The Bible itself even says, multiple times, that it is not our job to judge - it's God's. We seem to forget that rather quickly sometimes.

People are not black and white. This world we live in is not black and white. People are messy, and complex, and so is life. Trying to draw hard and clear lines will only guarantee that you get it wrong. Just love - be kind, and encourage others to do the same. Here, let me give you some examples to help. Using the right pronouns for someone? That's love. Recognising trans men as men, and trans women as women? That's love. Making things accessible for people with disabilities and access needs? That's love. Teaching people, and kids, about more than just heterosexuality, heteronormativity, cisgender, white society? That's love. Accepting that other people may have very different ideas about what a good life looks like to you, and loving them all the same? That's love. Intentionally listening to voices of women, people of colour, queer folks, disabled people - seeking out these voices and hearing their cries, and the hurts that you have caused; this is love.

Perhaps it is not the world that needs to repent; but the church.

Song Stories: More To Me

For this instalment of Song Stories, we have the next song from the Life To The Full EP, entitled More To Me. You can find the previous Song Stories here and here. I've pasted the lyrics for this song below, so that you can follow along and see where I'm drawing from.

Colours swirl all around me, and I don't know what to think
What's right and true, what is false or borne of hurt; and is it worth anything

What will it mean if I start down this path, for those around me and for me
Perhaps there are some roads better left unexplored, so I'll just blame curiosity

For there is more to me than what I've lived
And there is more to me than what I've believed before
There is more to me than some simple labels, cookie cutters
And we're going to sort this out

Each step another question for me now, so many "I'm not sure"s and "I don't know"s
And even if I come right back to where I was before, it will still help me to grow

Still adept at speaking in riddles, and giving non-answers
But it's my life here to live
I'm still on the journey, I'm still working this out
Maybe soon I'll have some more to give
But until then, I still know

The writing of this song was really interesting. I wrote it on the piano, and I wanted to do it in 6/8, to have that slow dance feel. And I also wanted this really nice ethereal sound happening up higher, so I came up with this motif using fifths over the top of the bass notes moving around for the verse. Think I'm fairly happy with how it worked out musically, though I can't really play it on the guitar.

This was basically my coming out song, in a way. I wrote it when I had just started figuring things out, and was pretty sure of how I identified but still had a lot of questions, and had no idea where things were going to go. As you can tell with the lyrics, there's a lot of uncertainty, and a lot of not really sure. And I also don't really spell anything out too clearly. That's partly because I wasn't really sure when I might play this - I wanted the option to maybe play it before coming out proper, just as a new song that I'd written, and not really talk too much about what it means, if I wanted to. But I didn't end up doing that, and I ended up not playing this for anyone until after I had come out publicly.

But in that early period, around October/November/December last year, there was so much that I was unsure about. And there were so many questions that I had. How was this going to interact with my faith? How was this going to interact with my marriage at the time? How was this going to interact with the relationships with my friends and family? How was this going to interact with my work? (One of my jobs at the time was working at a church.)

But what I was sure about, was that this was who I was. I was queer, non-binary, polyamorous, and pan. And I was sure that exploring this was the right path to go down. That might seem kinda crazy to you, given that I was married and working at a church. But let me explain.

All of my life, I've been on a journey of self-discovery. I've wanted to know myself in deeper and fuller ways. I've lapped up every identity quiz or personality test I can get my hands on, to try and help me understand myself better. I've spent a crapton of time with my own thoughts (probably way more than I'd ever need or want), and I've done a lot of intentional work on who I am, and the sort of person that I've become.

Over the last number of years, I've also put a lot of value into being authentic. Being true. Being honest. Being me - not living a lie, not putting on a mask, not being someone else. It's something that I have to be quite intentional about. Because it's hard. It's easy to slip into rhythms and routines, and say that everything is fine, when you're really just acting out a role, playing a part. But that's not how I want to live life.

I'd known for some time that there was depth to be explored around sexuality and gender identity - I don't know quite how long, but I'd say at least a few years. But I'd shelved it; decided I'd look at it another time, that it wasn't important right now, or that there wasn't much there, perhaps. But when I finally went diving, near the end of last year - gosh, there was a lot there. And it came up all at once. It was like it had been waiting for me to start paying it some attention, and now that I was, it wasn't waiting any longer! It was all coming out at once, here I am! Which was rather a lot to work through, of course. And it was a bit of a rollercoaster for a number of months. But I came out the other side; and much the better for it.

Because the thing is, there are a lot of things that our society, for better or worse, have decided as "normal", or "default". White. Male. Heterosexual. Monogamous. Cisgender. Neurotypical. Able-bodied. There's plenty more, but let's stop there for now. Now, each of these, in and of themselves, are not inherently bad. Plenty of people that fall in these buckets have been bad, yes - but arguably, these are not inherently bad things. Where it can turn bad is when it rules out everything else. Where all the other things are seen as less, inferior, second-class, bad. And that's what has happened in our society with these things - and so this breeds discrimination, and fear, and hatred, and conflict.

So the problem doesn't come from if you are one of these things. The problem comes from if you are one of these things - and never question that. Never look into it more deeply. Never understand why people would be anything different, anything other, than what you have known and grown up with. Now, for some of these things, that's going to look very different than it will other things. I'm white. I can't not be white. What is possible is that I could discover that I had an ancestor somewhere in my line from a non-white background that I didn't expect - but that's a little bit different than looking into sexuality, and figuring out that you're bisexual rather than straight, for instance.

But the point isn't to change who you are. It's not about trying to change you from cis to trans, or from straight to gay, or anything like that. No. The point is about understanding. It's about empathy, about compassion, about going beyond your own experience. You can't really understand discrimination until you've walked a bit in the shoes of someone that it's being pointed at.

And so looking into these things deeply isn't just for people who are questioning who they are. It's for everyone. Everyone needs to be understanding these things more deeply, understanding people more deeply, so that we can love people better. "And even if I come right back to where I was before, it will still help me to grow." It's not about whether who you are changes. It's about how you act changing. And maybe you will discover more about yourself - if so, cool! - but that's not all this is about.

So, even if I got through all my questions and my journey and everything and was like, "Actually, I was wrong. I actually am a monogamous straight male." The journey would still have taught me so much, and helped me to connect to other people better, understand people more.

"But what about your marriage?" you say. "What about your job? Aren't they worth more?" And the answer is - no. No, they're not. Because the truth is always worth more. It's the most precious thing that there is. It reminds me quite a bit of a parable that Jesus uses.

"The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which someone found and hid; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls; on finding one pearl of great value, he went and sold all that he had and bought it." Matthew 13:44-46 NRSV

 The truth is worth everything. A fake life, a false life, is worth nothing. I knew that the path that I was on, and the journey that I was starting, might cost me a lot. And when I was choosing to come out, I knew that that would probably cost me a lot as well. Family, friends - but, to me, even if I lost everything else; I would have the truth. I would be living the life that I had been made to live. And, in time; I would build more relationships, find more people living in the truth as well.

"And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first." Matthew 19:29-30 NRSV

Well. That went perhaps a bit deeper than I expected! But that was good to work through. I hope you enjoyed that look at More To Me. Next time - it won't be so black and white.

Being Bi+

Last Thursday, September 23rd, was Bi+ Visibility Day. I didn't really know about it until just a few days beforehand. But I'm glad that I found out about it - because it gave me the opportunity to attend multiple sessions from a forum/conference run by Stand Bi Us, which has been really awesome. They've had sessions over Zoom talking about so many different issues for bi+ people, including bi-erasure, pronouns, breaking out of the binary, polyamory, talks from writers, First Nations people, an inter-generational panel, a poetry reading space, discussions around pets and books and games and plenty more. It's been a lot of fun, and a great opportunity to connect more in to queer community. But I thought I'd take this opportunity to talk a little bit about what this means and looks like for me in a bit more depth - what being bi+ has meant for me.

To start with, let's talk about what I mean when I say bi+. Bi is short for bisexual, which is someone attracted to two or more genders. Bi+ is then inclusive of other more specific identities that people have used for multi-gender attraction, including polysexual, omnisexual, pansexual, and more. And, of course, this also includes romantic attraction, not just sexual attraction; but I won't talk about the split attraction model too much here. I'll leave that to its own post, or feel free to do some of your own research there.

As I've noted before, I come from a Christian background. The sort of Christian that tended to assume people were straight and cisgender (though I hadn't even heard of the word cisgender until a few years ago), that that was the default, and anything else was a deviation from the norm and probably either sinful or a result of the broken nature of creation. And though it's been quite a while that that hasn't resonated with me or felt true to the God that I know and love, I still fell into that same thinking when it came to myself.

Because as early as I could talk or really understand sexual attraction at all, I could tell you that I was sexually attracted to men as well as women. From early in high school. But my background said that that wasn't okay - and so I called it lust. I labelled that attraction as lust, and not okay. And it took a very long time (much too long, honestly) to come to the realisation that actually, this attraction was just the same as the sexual attraction that I had to women. There really wasn't any difference. Nor was there any difference for non-binary or intersex people, people of other genders or sexes. There were different bodies and body types, yes, and I'd find different things attractive with different people - but I could be sexually attracted to any gender pretty much without differentiation that I could tell. And that's why I say that I'm pansexual.

Romantic attraction is a little bit different, though, because that wasn't as equal. I didn't find myself romantically attracted to guys when I was younger, so that wasn't something I had to try and wrestle with as well. Though perhaps if I did, maybe I would have figured these things out sooner? Who knows. More recently, though, as I've started to connect better with myself, and also just know more people; there are definitely non-binary people that I can find romantically attractive, and even some men (goodness! radical). It's kinda on a sliding scale from masculine to feminine - the more masculine someone presents, the less likely I could be romantically attracted to them, and the more feminine someone presents, the more likely I could be romantically attracted to them. But it's not a sure thing. It's just an increased or decreased likelihood of the possibility of something happening. And so that fits within me being omniromantic. I'm still romantically attracted to all genders, but not equally so.

It's interesting entering into this new space of being at home with this part of myself and who I am over the last - ten months or so now? - in a time when there's more and more knowledge and acceptance around multi-gender attracted people, but still plenty of ignorance or phobia or discrimination and the like. I haven't been at the receiving end of much of that yet; but I've also had the benefit of being in lockdown for much of the time. I'm sure difficulties and hardship will come in time. But right now - I'm grateful to be here. I'm grateful to know myself, and be honest with myself, and live as myself, not as someone else.

Some myths to dispel. It's not about "being greedy" or "indecisive". This is who I am. You don't call pizza greedy or indecisive for being bread, dairy, fatty, and possibly also protein or veggie groups all at once. That's just what it is, it wouldn't be pizza without that.
It also doesn't mean that you need to be scared about me flirting with you if you have no interest in me. I want relationships with people that are interested in me, not that aren't. I'm not trying to change what your sexuality or way of being attracted to people is. That's yours. Me being me doesn't change who you are.
We're also not just one in a million. In actuality, we make up the largest piece of the LGBTQIA+ pie - I believe it's over 40%. You might not be as familiar with us as you are with folks that are lesbian or gay, but there are actually more of us.
Being bi+, though, doesn't automatically equate to having sex with lots of people, or the desire to do so. There are folks like that who are bi+, yes. There are folks like that who aren't bi+ as well. And there are plenty of bi+ folks who are more reserved sexually too, just like there are non-bi+ folks that are. If you're wondering which I am; sorry, that's not the sort of thing that I put up on a blog post! Feel free to start a conversation; but that's not permission to be lewd right out of the gate. In all things, consent is important.

Think that's it for now! I'll probably do another one like this around being non-binary, and another around polyamory, at some point. Perhaps around neurodivergence, as well, since it's been a while since I've written about it. But I hope you liked that dive into things.

Song Stories: Screaming

Let's do another song story! If you didn't check out the previous one, you can find it here. This one is going to be about Screaming, the second song on my Life To The Full EP. Lyrics are below as a reference.

There's so much screaming in my head, all the time
Yet so little screaming comes out of this mouth, life just strolls by
So many things I see in this world that make me bleed
One day I'll count up all the drops, and make you see

That this world is a scary place for all of us
And this world has so much to give, but it's not enough
For we are the monsters in this fairytale
Yes we are the reason that I'm screaming here

You might think you're the exception to the rule
But everyone is a monster, and you're the fool
Yes all of us have made someone bleed, don't you know
Maybe you've made yourself forget that it's so

Today is the start of something new
Today we start to disappear
Cause this world we're in it's screaming
Yeah, this world we're in, it's screaming, it's screaming

Let's get into it! Like the previous song, this one is a little out of my usual style; probably not as much, but a little. It's heavier rock than what I'd usually do, musically. But it's fairly fun to play, and pretty simple (as was the previous one). I also came up with a music video idea for this one, actually! I think this one was a claymation idea that I had, with monsters. As you do. Probably easier to do than the previous one, but still well beyond my own skills.

I wrote this one on the train on the way to work one day, later last year I'm fairly sure. I hadn't written anything in a fair while, and I wanted to just get something down. So I started writing - and this is what came out. And I was really happy with it, so it stayed pretty much as is.

Lyrically, there are two different ideas that I'm kinda attempting to weave in together here; it sorta works, sorta doesn't. The first, which most of the song spends time on, is what we're doing to this world - how "this world has so much to give", there are so many natural resources and things in abundance here, "but it's not enough"; we're too greedy, we take too much, and it throws the world askew. We're starting to see the effects of that, through climate change - crazy weather, natural disasters happening more and worse, sea levels rising, all of the things. "Cause this world we're in, it's screaming." Our world can't take our cruelty, and the amount that we're hurting it.

But we're not content to only be hurting the world; we also hurt each other. "All of us have made someone bleed." We are cruel, and selfish, and cold, uncaring people, so much of the time. We don't think about how our actions hurt the people around us. But we like to forget this; particularly when it comes to ourselves. "You might think you're the exception to the rule." We like to think that we're exempt. We're nice! We're good! We're gentle, and kind, and good! I can guarantee you - no matter how kind, and good, and amazing a person you are; there is always going to be someone that you hurt, in life. Probably many people. Because we make mistakes. But all too often, we don't learn from those mistakes; we make the same ones, again and again, and we keep hurting people. We keep doing harm. We keep making people bleed.

"For we are the monsters in this fairytale." We're the monsters here. That's why I'm screaming. Because I'm a monster. And you're a monster. We hurt this world, and we hurt each other - and we keep doing that, and we keep saying that it's fine. Or we're not actually hurting anyone, or anything, and this is all okay. But it's not. Each day, there is so much suffering in this world, so much screaming, that is because of us monsters. But we just act like everything is normal and fine and dandy, and we don't do anything about it. "Yet so little screaming comes out of this mouth; life just strolls by." We need to make noise. We need to start screaming. People need to realise that they're hurting people through what they do, hurting the world through what they do.

The bridge - I don't quite understand it, honestly! I'm not sure what it's saying. I think it's talking about if we just disappeared, then maybe the screaming would go away; maybe, the hurt would go away. But I don't really know. It's a bit cryptic. And I wrote it! My brain is strange.

But anyway - that's the song story for Screaming. We're two songs in to this EP - that's one third of the way done! Tune in next time to hear about what more there is to me.

Life Is Strange - Colours Staying True

Last year, I gave you my thoughts on Life Is Strange, Life Is Strange: Before The Storm, and Life Is Strange 2. (If you would like to read those, you can find them here and here.) Well, they're back with yet another instalment, in Life Is Strange: True Colors. It's a standalone story that doesn't really overlap with any of the others, though if you have played Before The Storm, you'll recognise Steph as a character from there. But the main character in this story is Alex Chen, a 21-year old woman who becomes reunited with her older brother in a little town called Haven Springs after years of going through the foster system - only to lose him in what seems like a freak accident. But, as things come to the surface, it becomes clear that this is no accident. (Warning: some spoilers ahead. I'm avoiding key ones, but if you want to go into the game without spoilers, you might want to save this for later.)

For those who have played previous Life Is Strange games, much of how you interact with the world will be familiar. The game is broken up into five chapters or episodes, similar to previous games; each has a playtime of about a couple of hours, depending on how much exploration you do, or how much time you spend listening to the music cutscenes and the like (there's a number of them). Gameplay is made up of sections where you explore various environments around the town of Haven Springs, interspersed by cutscenes that often have choices attached to them. Some of these may be very small choices, like whether to give someone a handshake or a hug; some may be larger choices, like choosing whether to keep or share a secret entrusted to you by a child. Many of these choices will have consequences, whether good or bad, and change how different characters interact with you or events play out. The game is good at highlighting the very significant choices; these are presented to you differently, and you can even opt to have a "confirm" dialogue pop-up in these just to make sure you don't accidentally click something. There is an inventory, but you won't be using it much; the main time you interact with it or notice it will be during the LARP in the third episode (which is one of the coolest sequences in the game). You do, however, have a phone in which you get text messages from other characters, as well as an app that's basically to give you updates on things happening around the town. You also keep a journal of some key moments during the story, and there's a tab to store specific memories you find.

Speaking of which - let's get to the powers. People who have played Life Is Strange games before will know that one of the key inclusions in this world is that one of the main characters typically has powers of some kind. In this instance, Alex has empathy. This means that when people are feeling strong emotions, she can see it as a coloured aura around them; and, by interacting with this aura, she can also hear why they are feeling this emotion. She can also find objects that have emotions imbued into them, and hear the memories associated with them. As you progress through the story, you'll understand this power more, and find out how she can use this power to help - or hurt - those around her. Somewhat similarly to Inside Out, there are only a few key emotions that are highlighted in this game; sadness (blue), fear (purple), anger (red), and eventually, joy (gold). Alex has previously thought of this as a curse; but, if she wants to find out the truth, she will need to use this power to uncover the emotions of the people around her. You will need to decide when using this power will help; and when it might hurt. And if that's what you want to do.

Each game has also given a creative bent to each of the main characters. Max was a photographer; Chloe was a graffiti artist; Sean was a pencil artist; and Alex is a musician. She has a guitar, and plays it occasionally through the story; it's not frequently used, but music does show up prominently (which, surprisingly enough, I connect to quite strongly). Her notes in her journal include fragments of song lyrics with chords, and I love this detail. Basically all of the "Moments of Calm" you have will feature a particular song playing; either on a record player (which feature heavily), or from a jukebox, or perhaps just from nowhere in particular.

Haven Springs, where the game is located, is a beautiful setting. The amount that you can explore is fairly decent, but limited so that you can't do too much. You've basically got Main Street, plus a park and a jetty at one end. The main buildings that you'll be spending time in are the bar (which Alex lives above), the record store, the flower shop, and the dispensary - though you'll also take one-off excursions to other places now and then, as things become relevant to the story. The visuals are lovely, and the LARP in episode 3, as I've already mentioned, is a particular stand-out.

The controls are simple and easy to get a hang of. I also can't remember any spots in the game where there was a time-sensitive response I needed to give; this might have been another setting in the menu? The subtitles were great (I basically always have them on in games these days, it's fantastic), and there are good options for various sorts of colour-blind folks as well.

The story is also really enjoyable. The characters are relatable and have depth to them that's really vibrant. The time that you have playing with it is obviously compressed - but you have the ability to establish deep relationships and connections with many people in the town, including potential romantic relationships with either Steph or Ryan (I went with Steph, because she is amazing, and I loved seeing her again, but do what you like in your own playthrough). The story does feel like it ends somewhat suddenly; and the massive secret doesn't feel as massive as perhaps it should have been when it finally comes to light, but it was still really fun the whole way through. There are some solid twists to the story that are quite good, with plenty to dig into if you want to play the game multiple times.

Having said that, this is a Life Is Strange game. And it wouldn't be that without taking you on a fairly decent emotional rollercoaster. While that's true to some degree in this game, I didn't feel it to the same level as I did in previous games. The darkness and depths of sorrow and grief are still there, and you feel that - but it tends to be in shorter sections, padded by large amounts of lighter emotion and plenty of feel-goods. Something that does feel somewhat lacking in this instalment of the series, however; in the stories so far, they've done a great job at putting you in the shoes of someone you perhaps hadn't been in before. In the first game, you were an American teenage girl in high school, facing issues of suicide, murder, drug use, bullying, and more; in the second, you were a Mexican teenage older brother, facing issues of racism and inequality, injustice, and family death and split. Here, the main new ones are Alex's history as a foster child and teen, and the struggles she's had with feeling alone or abandoned amongst that; but these only come up a few times in the game, and it feels less like the space that the creators were playing with in previous titles. I'll admit, I did enjoy the more uplifting tone of this game overall; but I also miss the challenge that these games tended to give me, in terms of how I saw the world, or thought about things. Perhaps other people will see things that I didn't (there is some anti-mining sentiment, or more accurately, anti-big-faceless-business sentiment, but that feels common enough these days). 

In terms of things to watch out for with triggers and the like; there are some scenes which play with surrealism and such in how they are presented which may be upsetting, which is part of how they are presenting you interacting with emotions - there are also some scenes of arguing, and one particular scene where a character is quite visibly hurt and bleeding, plus another brief fight scene, and casual swearing interspersed throughout, but I think that's about it.

For myself - I really loved this game. I would have loved it to go on a bit longer, and to develop these relationships even deeper (particularly the romantic one!), and spend more time with these people and this story and this town. I especially vibed with Alex, which shouldn't be too surprising - as someone who is also a musician, and strongly empathetic, the character resonated with me strongly. I really enjoyed being able to play her, and spend some time in her head; I love her confidence and strength, even after all that she's gone through and experienced.

This was a really awesome and fun game, and I'll definitely be playing through it again. I also look forward to the shorter story Wavelengths that serves as a prequel to this, following some of Steph's journey, coming out at the end of this month. I'm anticipating I won't have quite as much to say on that one, but I know I'll enjoy it.

Song Stories: Free

I'm going to start doing a series of blog posts talking about songs that I've written, and the story of those songs. Every song is a story. Some of those stories have more depth than others, but they all have a story; some have multiple! This series won't be on a specific schedule or anything, just as something I can come back to whenever I feel like it to talk about another song that I want to. To start off, though, I'd like to talk about the stories of a set of songs that I'm planning to put together into an EP at some point called Life To The Full. These are songs that I've written over the last year and a bit, and show parts of my journey over that time. So the stories will as well.

I'm going to start off with the first track from the EP, Free. I've put the lyrics below for people to read and refer back to, though I'll copy lines in if I'm referring to them specifically.

I don't want to seem like I'm fake, but I keep making that same mistake
Trying to run around do everything, all while wearing that plastic grin (like I'm fine)
Too many things to do, I'm being torn up from my roots
But I don't know any other way, oh how will I ever escape (from this life)

I know, you say you're with me
And I heard, you can make me free
I'm not sure if I believe
Cause how could it ever be
Free, free, free

So I keep doing it by myself, no I don't need anyone's help
Yeah, that's what I say in my head, but if I keep doing this then I'm dead (out of time)
Can't beat the morning rush, I'm in over my head as such
No way there is for me to go, but this is how we do it so (keep in line)

This world is tight around me, trying to pull me on its strings (you want me to dance)
I try to find my way but it's not doing anything (but how can I dance)
I need to break out of this cage it's not letting me breathe (I've got no space)
I turn to you, I fall on you, can you please set me free (free from this place)

Now I know that you're with me
And I've found you can make me free
And you know that I believe
Because you helped me see
Free, free, free

This is the earliest song I wrote on the album; I actually wrote it before Australia went into lockdown last year, so around March I think? It's in a very different style to my usual musically, almost like a techno dance beat sort of sound. (Which is difficult to reproduce acoustically!) When I wrote it I came up with an idea for a music video to go with it as well (which is still in my head somewhere), with a bunch of dancers, and shadows, and lighting, and such. I got really hyped by it, and it got stuck in my head for quite some time.

Lyrically, though, it's fairly cliché - and probably not what I'd write now I feel? It's kinda written from the perspective of the typical conversion story; person is struggling with life, but trying to do it by themselves, not getting anywhere, kinda falling apart, they turn to God, things get better. Woo.

Needless to say, I've lived enough of life and met enough people that I know that things are just a touch more complex than this. I'm still a Christian, I still believe in God, and grateful to know them and be in relationship with them - but I wouldn't describe myself as evangelical any more. I don't think that God has set a goal on my life that I need to tell people about God, get them to pray the prayer, make sure they're going to church, get them baptised, become Christian; but, perhaps that should be its own post for another time. (Chances are I'll get some concerned comments when I put this on Facebook, so I will make sure to actually write that post, yes.)

But let's take this song in another direction. Because, although it does fit the typical conversion narrative - it doesn't mention God, or Jesus, or really anything directly Christian by name. And so, quite easily, this can change from talking about leaning on God, to leaning on each other. And not trying to go through life by yourself.

This is probably the biggest lesson that I've learned (or re-learned) from lockdown and the pandemic - trying to do things by yourself is really hard. Particularly if the odds are stacked against you, for whatever reason (mental/emotional/physical health issues, financial difficulties, discrimination). And the thing is, we're not meant to. You can argue that from a spiritual, Christian perspective - but even just from a perspective of history and evolution; we've mainly existed in groups. It's only quite recently in history that more and more people have been living by themselves, or in relative isolation. So it shouldn't be surprising or strange that it's difficult. We're meant to live in community. That means sharing the load, not trying to face challenges by ourselves - but instead, getting help. It's hard, when we're raised in a Western society where we're taught to value individuality; it pushes against the grain. But perhaps it's less hard than trying to do life by ourselves.

So, you know what - I might be changing a few of these lyrics. Yes. I might even do that now......

Through the *magic of editing* this has been immediate for you, whereas for me I wrote the rest of the above a week ago. I did look back at the song right away! But it took me a while to find something else that stuck. The new chorus, bridge, and final chorus are below. The verses stay the same.

I know you say you'll help me
But why can't I just be free
Not sure quite how to breathe
Oh how could it ever be
Free, free, free

This world is tight around me, trying to pull me on its strings (You want me to dance)
I try to find my way but it's not doing anything (But how can I dance)
I need to break out of this cage, it's not letting me breathe (I've got no space)
I turn to you I'm asking you, can you please set me free (Free from this place)

Now I know that you're with me
Together, now we are free
I've found my space to breathe
Because you helped me see
Free, free, free

That feels better. We get stuck in cages and prisons so often - sometimes of the world's devising (which is mostly what the song focusses on), sometimes made by other people around us, sometimes made by us. Often, the prisons made by others become so ingrained over time that we reinforce them ourselves. Being freed from these prisons is much easier when we work together with others, rather than trying to do it ourselves. All too often, we don't even try to leave the prisons - we think it's impossible, that this is just how life always is, and there's no other way. But people can show us other possibilities, other ways of living. And that can be very powerful.

I hope you enjoyed hearing a bit about the story of this song. Tune in next time to hear me screaming more about the world....

Intersectionality.

You might have heard this word, "intersectionality", before. It's used to talk about people who live in the overlap of multiple areas of disadvantage, or discrimination. It can be talking about disability, race, sexuality, gender, wealth, and a number of other things.

I grew up being multiply privileged. White, middle-class, Christian, fairly able-bodied, and seemingly male and heterosexual. To the outside world, I lived in the overlap of most of the groups that were oppressing everyone else.

Over time, though, other things began to bubble up. Autism. Depression. Being queer. Non-binary. Polyamorous. Omniromantic pansexual. And suddenly, I was living in the intersection of multiple areas that were discriminated against - while never having really experienced that myself.

And to the outside world, to the random passer-by or person on the train, I still come off as white, male, cisgender, straight. Which is both sad and weird, in a way. 

Weird because it's interesting how things are perceived on the outside, and how little things can change that. If I start wearing a skirt or a dress out, for instance (I've done the former a few times so far, still working to find ones I like), then suddenly that changes. I come across as queer. Or maybe I wear something with a pride flag on it, and again, the mirage is broken.

Sad because this incorrect image of me is the type that tends to inspire fear and caution from many, and not without good reason. White folks and men have plenty to answer for, particularly in how they've treated folks that aren't white or men. But it feels sad that seeing me can inspire that response in people, when I know that's not me.

At the same time, of course, I can't do much about people's perceptions. People will perceive what they will. And I don't have the time or energy to correct all of them if they are off a bit. But I can work towards - and I suppose I am working towards - having a gender expression that reflects my identity. It takes time. 

It does feel strange, though, living now in the middle of multiple areas of disadvantage, but not really experiencing much of that (insofar, at least). To be fair, I'm very new to this. So there's plenty of time and room for things to get worse. But I think I was bracing for things to be suddenly much harder than they have been 😅 I think there will be ample opportunity for these things to show up in time, though.

In saying all this, though, I still live in the intersection of many areas of privilege. I'm still white. I'm young. I live in a first-world country. I have a house that I live in. I speak English, and well. I've had a tertiary education. I'm part of a majority religion (though I'm a minority within that). Allosexual (rather than asexual). I fall somewhat within the lines of conventional attractiveness. I don't live with chronic pain or physical health conditions. I live in or near a city. I have many privileges, and many biases, that I need to be aware of in my life, and in how I interact with the people around me. Things that are easy and simple for me are not so easy or simple for many, many others. I'd really encourage you to take a look at the diagram above by Intertwine to examine the areas of privilege that you fall within, to perhaps be more aware of those. We can so easily become blind to the background noise of our lives - don't be. It's all important.

Lockdown Round Two.

For those who somehow aren't aware (perhaps you're elsewhere in the world reading this), most of Sydney is in lockdown, and has been for about a month now - and it's looking like we may not come out for another month or two, with the numbers still being quite high. The Delta variant is just raging through the country at the moment, and it's not particularly fun.

But it's interesting to me comparing this lockdown to last time, in terms of my own experience.

Last lockdown was very different for me. It was still hard, and still difficult, and I still struggled with things like energy and not being able to see people and all of that, for sure. But the work that I was doing before lockdown I had mostly been doing from home anyway, so it wasn't too hard to transition to all from home. But this time, the work I'm doing has been all in-person, and can't really be done from home (for the most part). I was also in a relationship last time, and living with my partner, whereas now I'm separated - still living with other people, but it's a different experience.

And this lockdown, for me, has been a fair bit more difficult. Most days I haven't had energy to do much at all. Like, 2-3 out of 10 for most of the day, most days. I have spurts and bits of energy that come now and then, but they're rather hard to control and direct.

I think I just wasn't ready for it. Mentally, for some reason, I thought that we'd only have to do the thing once, and then it would be past and done, and we'd be able to move on. But the real world is a bit more complicated than that - and so are viruses! Mutation is a thing. And so here we are.

I heard somebody mentioning the other day that perhaps we'll just keep seeing the virus mutating and growing, and maybe we won't be able to keep up with it with vaccinations and the like, and we'll just have to live in lockdown from now on - it reminded me (strangely) of a race called the Quarians from the Mass Effect games. They would live all their lives in these environmental suits, could basically only eat what they can put through a straw or a tube, and all their air and everything is regulated and filtered by the suit. Maybe that's one future that we end up heading towards, but I doubt it. I guess I'm slightly more positive than that.

But this virus has certainly ravaged the world. At the moment, the recorded deaths on the WHO website are about 4.1 million. That's about 0.6% of the global population - and chances are, there are plenty of deaths that haven't been recorded, and we also aren't finished yet. And that might seem small; but for the influenza pandemic that happened about a hundred years ago, which is generally considered to have one of the highest death tolls, killed (very roughly) 1.8% of the population of the time (using an average of the death figures and population figures available online). So we're about a third of the way to being as bad as that, with all of the modern help that we have now. That's substantial.

Covid has changed the world. And it's going to continue to change the world, in more ways than I think we can understand right now. But I hope you're able to find hope amongst it. This is one bit of hope made during lockdown that I've found really lovely.

So have another cup of tea. Or hot chocolate. Or whatever it is that helps you. Find a good book. That old song you loved. Give yourself a bit more love. You need it right now.

And please. Do the right thing, folks. Stay safe. And keep others safe too.