You’re Not Demanding Things Of The Person, You’re Demanding Them Of The Relationship

I said this yesterday:

“Remember: There’s a ton of ways to do polyamory. It’s not wrong to demand what you want out of a relationships; it is wrong to demand that any relationships that don’t do that are somehow flawed.”

To which some folks asked, “Demand? Is it healthy to have a relationship where people are demanding things?”

My reply is that it’s unhealthier to have a relationship where people don’t demand things.

You are, whether you want to use the word “demand” or not, quietly demanding things in your relationships – baseline expectations that you probably don’t even think about, because they’re so non-negotiable you couldn’t consider a relationship without it.

“I demand that my partner doesn’t hurt me nonconsensually” is a big one for a lot of people, as is “I demand they only have sex with people of a legal age.” But even excluding those unthinkables – and you shouldn’t – there’s plenty of other baseline demands like “I demand they treat my job with respect” and “I demand they stay faithful in the ways I define fidelity.”

“But those aren’t demands, Ferrett….”

Really? Are they negotiable for you? Will you look at someone seriously threatening to cut your throat with a knife if you ever go out in that outfit again and go, “Well, maybe if they brandished a paring knife?”

No, there’s certain lines people can’t cross with you, or they don’t get to stay in your life in this way. That’s extremely healthy behavior.

That’s a demand.

The trick is that your baseline needs are not necessarily a demand of the person. There are certainly dysfunctional relationships where people find folks who are utterly not what they need in life and try to warp them to fit, like banging a piece of tin to wrap around an anvil. And that’s a terrible idea.

It’s true that good relationships are built on negotiations.

But good negotiations come from knowing when it’s time to walk away from the table.

As such, it’s good to think about your non-negotiables – and they don’t all have to be life-threatening. These are the things that will absolutely break you if you try to bend the rules on ’em, and they can be both extremely specific and seemingly trivial to other people.

For example, if someone I live with is out late, they have to call to tell me when they’ll be back, or else with each passing hour I can’t stop imagining that they’re dead in a ditch somewhere. I don’t care where they are, I just need to know they’re safe now and when I need to start up my worry-clock again – I panic, and all that panic vanishes the minute they text me “I’m at a party, it’s great, I’ll be back before 4:00 am.”

(Just kidding. My wife and I are elderly. We don’t go out to parties any more.)

But the trick with that is that I’m not necessarily demanding the person I’m living with has to change! (Though it’d be nice.) I’m saying, “This is a thing I require to be in a relationship where we live together, and if you can’t do that, then we can’t be in that type of relationship.”

That relationship can shift! I don’t worry about the people I’m not living with, so maybe that person moves out… or I do.

Likewise, if someone in an intense romantic relationship can’t provide your required level of intimacy or fidelity, maybe you downshift the relationship to FWB or even just F. Maybe your mom won’t stop tromping on your boundaries, so you shift that from “Weekly conversations” to “Monthly texts.”

If the person can change, great! But the demand is on the relationship, not the person.

Which is scary, because in romance, those demands can mean “We can’t date” and no one wants a breakup; it’s easier to try to browbeat someone into changing. And again, if they’re amenable, fine, but often altering a person to suit your needs is an act of harm.

And also… make super-sure that these demands are actually non-negotiable, and not just things you really like having. Would you actually leave if that happened, or would you just gripe a lot? It’s fine to say “My partner and I have to have sex every day,” but if everything else is wonderful and you’re only having (very hot) sex two to three times a week, is that a “demand” so much as “my ideal”?

Ideals are different than demands. Demands are what you need because you will break in fundamental ways without them. Ideals are what you’d want in a vacuum, but it turns out when you balance them out among all the other good qualities a relationship provides, you can kinda slack on one individual point when the rest is eminently satisfying.

And yeah, sometimes demands turn out to be ideals, and vice-versa! I never said this was easy. Learning how you function with other people is a constant process, not an event you graduate from.

Finally, maybe you don’t like the term “demand.” Fine, I don’t care what you call it – a necessity, a dealbreaker, the core stuff. But if you’re healthy, you do have ’em. And learning what those non-negotiable aspects of your relationships are makes you both wiser and more able to change relationships when they become unhealthy for you.

And if you’re angry that someone might require something of you to remain in a relationship with you, well, that might be a sign that there are certain relationships people shouldn’t get into with you. Good people understand that other people have boundaries for a reason. (Great people support and expand other people’s safe boundaries.)

My Latest Podcast Is Out, My Latest Newsletter Is Out, I’m Out All Over

1) My newest “And We Will Plunder Their Prose” podcast is out! How did Seanan McGuire write a very passive character in a very dynamic way? Find out!

2) My latest newsletter is out! This one’s called “Can You Control Whether You’re A Bestselling Author?, a.k.a. ‘Sins Of The Publishing Industry.'” And if you’re just starting out writing, there is some vital advice for you in there.

(Oh, and don’t forget that you can, y’know, subscribe to the newsletter.)

3) Don’t forget that I still have my Board of Happiness ™ that you can contribute to, if you have something that fits in an envelope! (Just send me an email, I’ll shoot you the address.) Here’s this week’s decoration, and it is indeed loading itself down with flair:

Why I Don’t Like Playing Dungeons And Dragons Any More (But Love Other RPGs)

I recently joined a Discord devoted to homebrew RPG mechanics, and I realize the more people talk about hacking D&D, the less interest I have in playing D&D ever again. And here’s why:

1) I Know All The Stereotypes.
Part of the appeal for new players is what makes me weary – I’ve seen the bearded dwarf, the archer elf, the whacky kender a billion times, and my thirst for novelty makes it hard to get excited about playing with the pixie faerie rogue who steals everything that’s nailed down again.

Which isn’t to say that you can’t play unique characters in D&D – folks certainly have! But the class-and-race structure of D&D draws people towards certain well-worn archetypes, and while it’s certainly possible to play a half-orc paladin struggling against his inner bloodlust, in practice most groups are gonna have another Drizzt Do’Urden clone shuffling up to the table just because unless everyone’s committed to wild novelty, the game encourages players to trod down those dusty roads.

There’s nothing wrong with it if you enjoy that! But for me, I’ve played so many sessions with the furious barbarian that those sessions feel like reruns.

2) D&D’s Broken After About 8th Level.
Because D&D has precisely one form of common damage, the hit point, at some point higher levels degenerate into “Save or die” scenarios where the amount of damage has to be threatening, but will absolutely kill the squishier characters. So the game becomes filled with literal GM dodges where they struggle to keep characters alive.

D&D has a serious sweet spot issue, where playing PCs of around 3rd-8th level are the most satisfying, and after that they either die or they run into D&D’s other issue…

3) D&D Is A Ramp To Godhood.
It’s not like other systems (and videogames!) don’t do this too, but D&D is so based on “You fight, you get stronger” that you encounter pushback if you give the hero a permanent injury or take away a magic item without giving them a better one.

I like games that have consequences to bad decisions, and they’re hard to engineer in D&D without player resistance – there’s great stories like Jaime Lannister losing his hand and having to find some other way to be relevant.

But in D&D, unless you’re constantly levelling you’re dying – and while, again, you can tell those stories if you’ve got a committed band of players who are genuinely protective of their NPCs, in most cases the mechanics and the player expectations make it feel like punishment.

And to repeat: Nothing wrong with a good ol’ slog towards 20th level. But I like to think about character level, and it’s hard to engineer serious setbacks when any mechanical setbacks are against the system’s grain.

4) Combat Is Character-Free.
We’re playing a Blades in the Dark campaign, and the fighting is always character-based because of the way the system (and our excellent DM Jim) keeps throwing specific drawbacks at us – one character fighting the impending insurrection of his troops, another character’s wasting away due to his usage of magic.

And in D&D, it always seems like character should matter… but then the swords come out, and the system encourages people to turn into these statistics-based machines of death. It’s very much about accounting, position, the right bonuses, the right spells – and there’s so much of that that it often overwhelms the heroism moments.

And for the third time, again, sure, a group can battle past that to concentrate on the emotions! But a friend of mine likened it to a car that pulled hard to one side; he could never take his hand off the wheel and enjoy the ride if he wanted to encourage the kids he was DMing for to do any sort of narrative gaming.

D&D’s not bad; I’m glad it has a place in the industry. But while any TTRPG can be a place for high emotion, depending on the players (hell, there’s probably a heartbreakingly epic saga told in TOON somewhere), D&D’s mechanics – and, more importantly, what most people expect when they start a D&D game – tend to create an environment I’m not all that into.

If you’re into it, swell! But I’ve got the Dungeon World-style bug, the Unknown Armies itch, that Delta Green dependency. And so I leave you to your enjoyment…

And if you’re not enjoying it, well, maybe think about jumping ship to those other games?

My Board Of Happiness ™ Awaits Your Contribution!

1) My Board of Happiness ™ is evolving as people have sent me little pins and I’ve purchased my own decorations. If you’d like to contribute to my Board of Happiness ™, just email me.

2) I have a new essay up on Tor.com asking the question, “Is there such a thing as a necessary prequel?” I’m quite proud of the way this article takes cheap shots at Tom Bombadil’s slam poetry, so go check it out.

3) I mentioned it before in a status update, but my new podcast …And We Will Plunder Their Prose is now listed on Apple podcasts like many of you asked. This will be coming out every other week, so the next one won’t be until next Wednesday, but it’s listed in more places!

I Am, Regrettably, Declining To Debate You: Here’s Why.

You are a stranger who’s shown up in my comments, desiring a debate on the topic I just opined upon. “I am a logical human,” you tell me. “Swayed only by facts! So marshal your best facts, and you can convince me I’m wrong!”

While a kind offer, dear sir, I’m afraid I shan’t. And here’s the reasons why:

1) You’re Presuming It’s Worth My Time To Convince You.
I don’t know you. And maybe the same arguments I could use to convince you would be the same arguments that bring Ted Cruz to his knees, weeping, realizing that everything he thought is wrong.

But probably not.

And honestly, saying I need to convince you attaches a kind of importance to yourself, doesn’t it? Like you’re the gold standard, and if I convince you then vast riches will follow. Unfortunately, a lot of white cisdudes carry this attitude – “I am the only person truly worth debating, and unless you engage me – me personally then your argument is worthless.”

Dude, you’re just some schmuck on the Internet. Same as me. Maybe if you had a Joe Rogan-sized audience or something I might think “Well, here’s a valuable investment,” but is worth taking an hour out of my busy day to try to win you over?

Especially when I don’t know you. I mean, you say you’re logical, but every flat-Earther-and-lizard-rulers claims that. Based on past experience – because I’ve debated thousands of folks before – there’s like an 80% chance that anyone who comes saying “You must win me over!” is so thoroughly in the other camp that there’s no possible reconciliation.

And 80% is generous.

So yeah, you’ve started out by inflating your own self-importance. But to me, you’re an investment – If I spend my time engaging with this person, is that expenditure going to pay off?

Already, based on assumptions? Probably not. That’s not a ding on you, or anyone who does choose to invest, but I’ve got books to write, a podcast to produce, and partners I could be texting.

You’re kind of a distraction.

2) Engaging You In Public May Lend Your Stupid Argument My Credence.
Someone comes to you and says, “Milk is actually just chalk urine. Because chalk is alive, and it pees milk.”

Do you:
a) Spend hours refuting this argument, or:
b) Have a laugh and move on?

Probably b. Because some arguments are so patently false that it’s easy to walk past ’em.

Ah, but what if the person is from the Chalk Is Alive movement, a group that’s posted hundreds of books and webpages refuting the idea that milk comes from – of all creatures – cows? Why, here’s a hundred links pointing to prominent celebrities confusing cows and bulls, obviously nobody would make that mistake if cows were real, SEE THE COWSPIRACY

Should you engage then?

I’d argue not, for three very important reasons:
a) No matter how much you argue, milk comes from cows. (Or, okay, mammals.)
b) A person this deep in the bag isn’t gonna be convinced they’re wrong.
c) Giving air time to this jamook’s views in your comment thread by treating this ludicrous proposition like it’s worth debating convinces some aspect of your audience that there’s a legitimate debate to be had, thus encouraging people to join the Chalk Urine movement.

I’ve discussed this before in my essay A Reminder: You Don’t Have To Propagate Right-Wing Talking Points… but there’s this weird idea that “the marketplace of ideas” will somehow expunge all untruths, when the actual truth is that the Internet has allowed for perhaps the greatest expansion of free speech in the history of humanity, where anyone can have a platform that rivals the greatest of newspapers…

And what we’ve gotten is one of the greatest swirls of mis- and disinformation ever, peppered with the same old depressingly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

If “free speech” was the solution, it would be solved.

It ain’t. Therefore, giving your skewed views time or credence by debate may be just rallying newbies to the cause.

Is that the case with all viewpoints? Of course not. Some concerns are legitimate. Some folks are worth engaging with, because they do have actual concerns that can be assuaged with data. But that brings me to point #3….

3) Data Isn’t Neutral.
The people who cram twenty links into a five-paragraph comment believe they’re the easiest to convince – but in my (anecdotal) experience, every time these folks are not so much “using the data to derive their opinion” but “justifying their emotions by seeking out correlation.”

We can get into a link war, where I muster fifty links from my well-placed sources and you muster fifty-one links from your bullshit ones, and at the end of the day, well….

We get back to “Is this a good use of my time?”

Because the problem is that it’s hard to tell good bullshit from actual sources these days. I believe firmly in wearing masks, but I’ve had some anti-maskers post reputable links from what looked like good sites and actual data, until physician friends of mine explained to me why those studies were bad.

Fact is, if you have an opinion – any opinion – you can find a thousand links to back it up, even if it’s terrible. And if you’re looking to have your opinion changed, I don’t think data’s the way that it happens for most people.

I think most people devise their gut first and then find data to support it.

And again, I don’t know you. Maybe you’re a special snowflake. But let’s get to point #4….

4) Will This Be A Debate?
I define a “debate” as “a place where both participants have a chance of having their minds changed.” I take care to delineate where I can have a debate (economic policies, effective methods of policing, best Pixar movie) and where I can’t (who gets to use the bathroom, whether cops should measure threats based on how scared they are, best Star Wars movie).

(A New Hope. I have classic Star Wars tattoos. You’re not gonna convince me otherwise, but you be happy in your fandom.)

But to too many others, “debate” means “we clash to show off who’s smartest,” and fuck that. I want the truth when I debate. And I’m smart enough and good enough with words to know how to deflect people away from your weak logic, how to put a shine on turdy ideas, how to structure a story so you’re sympathizing with the people I need you to.

That’s fine technique for winning an audience over, but… I actually want the truth, not to win.

Again, I don’t know you. Maybe you think the same way? But probably not. Especially not if you’re basically flinging the glove down to demand a duel.

So you’re not the person I’m debating. And I’m sorry. I know you thought it was important to talk to you personally. But in the end, you’re an investment, and I’m the banker saying I don’t see a profit here.

There’s people who are probably willing, though. Maybe you can find someone! Or maybe you can educate yourself.

If you were ever willing to admit you might be wrong in the first place. But there’s a good chance I’m not because I’ve sifted through enough evidence that I’m reasonably certain that milk comes from cows, which, again, is a good reason for me to decline.

Sorry. It’s not me, it’s you.