The Complications of Rape

Much in the same way that each mass shooting in the USA stirs up a "debate" about gun laws a recent rape case in Steubenville, Ohio has resulted in a similar outcry.  The case is actually complicated (in my opinion) and raises interesting, but often unpleasant, questions about what is, or is not, rape and what should be done about it.  I will be talking here about the rape of women by men, which is far from the only form, but is the one in the Steubenville case, and the most common form.


This is another of my posts in which not only will I perhaps have an opinion which others find appalling and offensive, but perhaps more troubling is that as a man I feel quite trepidatious about expressing any opinion at all on rape.  I can start with what should seem obvious, and I would hope that this is what people would assume of me.  Rape is a hideous crime, a traumatic experience that I equate with the trauma of war.  It isn't simply a single nasty event, it is something that you carry with you effecting trust, instilling fear, and altering behavior over the long term.

The difficulty about rape is that it all comes down to the consent of the possible victim.  The exact same behavior can be rape or not based upon the wishes of one person.  It therefore requires that a person, or persons, know the opinion of the other person. At the best of times this is problematic, and rape cases generally don't happen at the best of times.

Men have a clear responsibility not to rape women.  In my opinion if a women says that she doesn't want to have sex then having sex with her is rape. This seems pretty clear, but is it?  There are beliefs that when women say "No" they mean "Yes."  There are beliefs that when women say "No" they mean "No."  What this comes down to is again the central problem of what women want.  Putting aside the quite reasonable and common position that everyone has trouble knowing what they want, and often decide what they wanted after the fact, the question of what "No" means comes down to what women mean when they say "No."

The truth (from what I can tell from the only study on this precise question I can find) is that there is no defining answer.  From this study (and I remember another one that I cannot find) about 40% of undergraduate students have said at some point, "No" when they mean "Yes."  In the other study I remember that about one third of high school students had said, "No" when they meant "Yes."  presumably there is a slight increase in this number as women age (for at least the reason that there will be fewer virgins as women age.)  So the truth on what women mean when they say "No" is that it is very difficult to know the answer.  The two ends of the spectrum are both wrong, the actual answer is that it is complicated and therefore difficult for someone who wants to have sex with a woman to know.

How to solve this problem of what, "No" means?  There has to be an agreement within society about what this means.  This is problematic because men are genetically programmed to try to have sex, and women often have a wish to test a man's commitment, to require him to pass tests (as I was, although not with regard to sex) in order to sort out whether he'll stick around to help raise the children.  There is also the wish, which I addressed in my recent post on "Romance," for women to be thought of as faithful and demure and for men to be aggressive, even a little sociopathic.  These wishes are biological in nature, they won't do away.

However, there are all sorts of things that we want to do biologically that we have been capable of overcoming, and as a society we should be able to come to an agreement that while these desires are there they can be regulated through.  At the moment there is societal pressure for women to not appear promiscuous, even if they want to be, or simply want to appear that way.  There is a widespread belief (not only among men) that dressing like a "slut" means you "want it" and therefore it "isn't rape."  There is also societal pressure for men to act "like men", to sweep her off her feet, or cajole a woman into sex by overcoming her apparent rejection.  If you as a man don't try to get a woman to have sex with you you won't have much sex (I know this personally), but this isn't true the other way round.  These are OK, but there needs to be a manner in which this can be stopped before harm is done.  This manner should be pretty simple, agree that "No" always means "No."

For "No" to mean "No" then it requires that both sexes agree to this.  Men need to learn and accept that "No" always means "No" but women need to learn and accept that for this to work they always have to mean "No" when they say "No."  There is a responsibility for men to not rape women but there is also a responsibility for women to clearly define when they are giving consent and when they are not.  I understand that there is societal pressure against these two sides to the coin, that it is difficult for women to say a "no" clearly, none of us like to do so, but sometimes you need to do difficult things.  Saying that societal pressure makes it too hard for women to say "no" to rape I find demeaning towards women, just as saying that societal pressure makes men rape women is demeaning.

Further complication comes from what seems the eminently sensible position that if you don't have the ability to consent then sex is rape.  However, again this comes down to a problem of what is the line at which you don't have the ability to consent.  Is it a bit drunk?  Very drunk?  Passed out on the floor drunk?   Are these stages of intoxication with regard to rape different in a long-term relationship than in a new encounter.  Is what is consent based on the community in which you find yourself?  If consent was given several hours before intoxication and the woman then becomes too intoxicated to make a reasonable decision does the early consent still apply?  In the Steubenville case it seems pretty clear that the victim was incapable of consent, but her peers thought that getting that drunk at a party meant that you deserved it, that it was implicit consent.  No-one tried to stop it, or reported it, to her peers it wasn't really a crime (even though the word "rape" was used repeatedly.)

One of the widespread reactions to the trial is that men need to be educated to stop raping women.  I agree that this is so, but I also object to the inclusion in the group "men" that rape women.  I am not part of that group.  In fact, assuming 20% of women are raped, and assuming that there are men who commit multiple rapes (let's put the average at a conservative 2) then 90% of us don't rape women.  To say "men rape women" is like saying "women lie and steal."  I find it offensive.  It seems to me that with 90% of men not raping women the problem is not so much education, can you think of another form of education that has a 90% success rate?

I also want to point out that a not insignificant portion of the population are sociopaths, perhaps as high as 5%, you can't teach these people to not rape because it is wrong, only that the results of rape for them aren't worth it.  This requires both punishment, but also consistently high reporting of rape which is very different from the present situation (90% not reported.)  High reporting not only requires the education of women of the importance of reporting, but also a massively increased acceptance (even admiration, my stance) by society of that reporting.  A start would be getting across that contrary to myth, false accusations of rape are very low and no higher than for other crime.  When women say they have been raped, they almost certainly have been raped.

There has been outrage over the "light" sentencing (a year to five years in juvenile detention) and the comment by a cable news network that it was also the rapists' lives that were ruined.  The outrage was that punishment wasn't severe enough and that they deserved no sympathy.  People want these boys/men? to suffer without sympathy for their suffering.  More punishment doesn't make society better, and personally I have sympathy for any suffering regardless of the cause.  The criminals in this case probably will have their lives deeply harmed by their actions, and that sucks.  Does this mean I have less sympathy for the victim?  Quite the reverse.

The final point I wish to address is the idea that if you dress a certain way, take drugs in certain places, and act in certain ways you are not "asking for it."  Of course you are not asking to be raped (after all, if you are asking for it you cannot be raped) and these actions don't justify being raped (contrary to some Ohio high school students' opinions) but these actions do put out signals that you are more likely to want to have sex than if you behave otherwise.  Telling the world that you want to have sex increases your chances of getting raped, and pretty much everyone knows this.  Just like if you leave your car unlocked and the keys in the ignition you don't deserve your car to be stolen but it is much more likely to be stolen, dressing in a thong and bra, getting drunk and kissing multiple men at a frat party doesn't mean you deserve to be raped, but it is going to increase your chances of being raped.

In summary, rape is more complicated than "men shouldn't do it and need to be told that" and more complicated than "they want it."  What is consent is a deeply murky subject that means different things to different people.  The responsibility to not rape lies largely with men, but also with women who need to take charge of deciding for themselves whether they want to have sex and to clearly express what they want.  There needs to be a societal agreement that "No" always means "No" and this involves both sexes taking responsibility for sticking to the agreement.

What is Good Enough?

There will be nothing new in this post.  It's mostly for me to precisely put down what I am thinking and feeling and what I should do about it.

I am going through a pretty common part of my emotional life, a bit where I am not motivated to do very much, I just want to sit in the lovely sunshine with a beer, a bong hit, and a book, listening to reggae.  So far in my life this recipe has worked every time to make me happy.  When I think to myself as to what I really want to do with my life, it pretty much comes down to that.

However, I am a human raised in a culture of productivity.  I have been taught that I should do my part, not be a slacker, try to have goals and achieve them.  I have a duty to other people to "do my part" and so therefore not doing anything is immoral.  Laziness is wrong.

There are some people for whom what they want to with their life is be productive.  Good for them, but for me these two things are incompatible.  As a result I have a conflict between making myself happy right now and a sense of wrongness about that.

Well, what is my duty to my fellow man?  How productive do I need to be?  What is good enough?  I'll start of with the idea that if everyone helped other people more than they were helped (as far as is possible) then the world would be a pretty wonderful place.  Do I do that right now?  The help I receive is largely from my wife, and I help her too by doing what she hates to do, loving her, and trying to help her be happier.  While I believe her to be giving more than she is getting, she seems happy with the arrangement.  However, I also provided the funds to help mentor some children, protect some people from horrific diseases, and feed some people.  Overall it seems that I am helping more than I am being helped.

Furthermore, I worked in social work, which is almost by definition helping people.  I did that for something like fifteen years, and I was good at it.  After I quit I had problems of guilt, that there were people hurting because I wasn't working anymore.  My wife put forward the opinion that I had done my share for my life, that I had done more good than most people would do in their lifetimes, and that was good enough.

I can therefore conclude that overall in my life I have done more good than harm, and unless I start causing harm to people that should be pretty much true for the rest of my life.  Isn't that good enough?  It depends whether you think "good enough" is more than doing more good than harm, but rather doing the amount of good that you can do.  I could do much more good, give more to charity, volunteer, go back to work, clean the house.    The difference between the two "good enoughs" is the area in which I find myself when I feel guilt about just wanting to make myself happy.  Nobody, well perhaps almost nobody, does the greatest amount of good they could.  Doing more good than harm makes the world better.

I'm going with the idea that I am good enough, and so I'm going to make myself very happy right now.

The Direction of Religion in Modern Times

This post will be mostly about "western" religion, the Abrahamic religions, particularly Christianity because I know something about it.  The reasons for this consist of the subject of worldwide religion being too vast for even I to adequately simplify it, western religion being more familiar to everyone who reads this, and the fact that the future of western religion is in many ways the past and present of eastern religions.

By the end of the seventh century anno domini pretty much all of the area west of Persia was under the domination of Abrahamic, monotheistic religion.  These religions all had dogma and doctrine, specific beliefs and rules from God, that were written down.  If you didn't believe these things you were a tiny minority, a heretic, and usually subject to punishment (often death).  Religious belief came from on high.  There was some diversity in these religions, and within them, although far more diversity within Islam than Christianity (which was essentially divided between two very similar sects, the split originally coming from who should be the biggest boss) but none in the concept of rules and beliefs.

In the 16th century Martin Luther famously nailed his objections to some Catholic doctrine (specifically indulgences) and Protestantism was born.  The basic concept of Protestantism is that salvation comes through faith alone, and doctrine and dogma come from the Bible alone.  This was a challenge to religion coming from above, and advanced the idea of individualized religion (within the framework of the Bible).  In Protestantism your salvation is based on your direct relationship with God and needs no intermediary.  One century later the Enlightenment began, and I am sure that someone has written something clever about the connection.

In Islam such a level of individualism has never been formally realized (although the Ahmadiyya sect believes that God stills communicates to individuals) but there is actually quite some variation in beliefs, for example, within Sub-Saharan Africa there is a 39% difference in the number of Muslims who believe the Qu'ran should be read literally, between Cameroon and The Democratic Republic of the Congo.  The individuality of Islam (belief that there are multiple ways to interpret the Qu'ran, and it is not literal) is significantly higher on average in Europe and the USA.

The differences in Judaism are legendary, ranging from simply a cultural identity to fully fundamentalist.  From the outside it seems that, at least for centuries, Judaism has been about arguing with regard to beliefs as anything else.

The point of all of that is that there has been a general movement towards an individualization of belief, and it seems pretty clear to me that there is at least some connection between this and the movement towards political democratization.  This movement is increasing.

The extreme version of this individualization is the idea of "spiritual but not religious."  Generally such people claim that there is some sort of higher power or lifeforce, but differ widely in what this means.  In my experience a good number of such people find it impossible to actually define what this higher power is.  While polls differ, it seems that in the USA somewhere near 15%, and in the European Union about one quarter, describe themselves this way.

I think all signs point towards the belief of being "spiritual but not religious" to be a growing phenomenon, probably the fastest growing religious category (although Atheists are giving them a run for their money).  What this means is that people are leaving religions in which beliefs come from the top down, and deciding for themselves what they believe at a greater and greater rate.

Now, this is the bit where I will probably start offending people.  What does spiritual but not religious really mean?  It means that each person is making up what they believe, very much like people make up their own political beliefs.  Through evidence, personal experience, and what they would like to be true a position is taken.  The genius thing about this group is that the belief can be so vague that individuals themselves don't have to explain what they mean, even to themselves, and so find themselves almost immune to other criticism.

"What do you believe?"
"I believe there is something out there, some force or being"
"Well, what is that something, and what does it do?"
"I don't know, nobody can really know for sure, it is indescribable."

This is the purest expression of faith I have ever heard.  Not only is there a belief without evidence, but even the belief cannot be known.  Imagine such an approach with any other sort of subject, or knowledge.  Imagine such an approach to ethics, "I believe there is a right way for people to act, but it is impossible for anyone to say what that is."  It is essentially a "get out of jail free" card, the proponent is completely free from any challenge whatsoever that conventional religion must undergo.  You can't point to transubstantiation and ask whether people really think the cookie is the body of God.  It frees one to believe whatever one wants to without challenge.  It's a genius move, religious belief without needing any justification.

The "indescribable" approach is the best, and yet the silliest, one.  It kills at conception any ability to discuss such a concept, because the belief is that the concept can't be discussed.  A belief in something that you can't describe.  A belief in something without any qualities at all with which we are familiar.  How can you believe in something that has no qualities?  Surely a thing with no qualities is not even a thing?  

Still, spiritual but not religious must surely mean something?  It isn't entirely vacuous, surely?  well, we have a belief in a lifeforce, or higher power.  At a minimum a higher power has power, and more than us.  Basically it a magical belief, for if not then it must follow the rules of physics and then is merely material, or has no power at all, and something that doesn't do anything IS an entirely vacuous concept.  Spiritual but not religious people believe in a form of magic, but without having to define that magic, or provide any evidence for it.  If you are "spiritual but not religious" you believe in magic.

Why would people believe in a magic something for which there is no evidence, and furthermore is often thought it impossible to provide evidence about it?  I think such a belief comes from a cultural starting point (conventional religious belief) subjected to a modern intellect (the challenging of ideas.)  Raised Catholic to believe in a cookie becoming the body of God, and then taught to think critically, a person is quite likely to find this concept nonsense.  Finding one nonsense concept in a religion and you become able to find many more.  Still, the childhood belief in God can still be there.  The objection is to the religion, not God.

Still, if you believe that the trappings and dogma of religion are false, why would you not think that the central concept is false also?  Well, many do.  However, many don't.  I think the reason that they don't is that a higher power provides comfort, particularly to those who had believed growing up and therefore would "miss" the things that God provided.  What are the things that the idea of God provided?  Well, a higher power must have some sort of will, some desire, some plan.  This gives meaning to our existence, it means we aren't the result of a series of accidents.  God is also pretty universally thought to be loving (at least to those who behave) and to be surrounded by a loving, magical force is very comforting.  it must be very much like the comfort young children get from their apparently omnipotent parents.

I think "spiritual but not religious" is the direction that religion is heading, and I believe that this is so worldwide.  It provides the comfort of religion without the rules, and the necessity of subjecting that comfort to critical thinking.  It's a win-win for those who put themselves in this category.  I actually think that a very large proportion of those who put themselves in this category only do so when asked about their beliefs, in truth most in this category simply don't HAVE belief.

For those with adequate intellect I think either having no belief, simply not thinking about something without any relevance to our lives, or having defined beliefs are the only positions that are not intellectually cowardly.  By intellectually cowardly I mean preventing one's beliefs from challenge, believing something but not wanting that belief to be subject to intellectual thought.  If you believe in something you must be able to describe in what you believe, or you don't actually believe in it.  If you can describe something then such a thing is subject to argument, evidence, dispute.

For those who have this position i think it quite likely that they believe that either my Atheistic, materialistic position is cowardly (that I outright dismiss the possibility of anything higher, transcendent, or unexplainable (the last being a common accusation but false)) or a follower of traditional religion is cowardly (unwilling to think for themselves.)

Still, I'll leave you with this thought.  Do you actually know what you believe and why?  If not, aren't you just making stuff up to make you feel better?

It Can't be That Bad

People are good at outrage, gloom and doom.  They are particularly good at this with regard to their governments, and particularly in the USA.  It has been a pretty consistent result of polls over the past few years that Congress has an approval rating at or below 20%., Americans hate Congress.  They actually quite like Obama, so Republicans may wish to reconsider their position that the reason they aren't in power is that they weren't right wing enough.

It is trivially easy to see outrage in our media.  If you have facebook or e-mail someone will almost certainly be telling you about something awful this week.  Watch "news" and there will be a diatribe about the outrageous behavior of someone.  "If you aren't outraged you aren't paying attention" as the bumper sticker goes.

As far as I can tell the dominant view in the USA is that things are pretty bad and the government is worse.  However, I ask, "Is this correct?"

There was an election just our months ago in which about 60% of eligible voters voted.  The outcome of this election was essentially that the same government was re-elected.  The USA electorate re-elected a government that they consistently say they hate.  What's going on here?  I would guess that the usual answer would be that voters voted against the other guy while holding their noses about their guy.

Two years ago through much of the Arab world citizens rose up in mass protests against authoritarian regimes, mostly removed them, and are undergoing the rather painful process of inventing a new sort of government.  This is as far away from re-electing their government as it is possible to be.  why did they do this?  They did it because they found the conditions of their lives unacceptable, and the government that was in charge of this condition was unacceptable.  When enough people deemed the government unacceptable they mobilized, at great individual risk to themselves, to change the government.

Nothing remotely like the Arab Spring has happened in the USA for decades.  The closest things would be the protests against the Iraq War, the Tea Party demonstrations, and the Occupy Movement.  The first had no effect and was a minority position, the second got a significant group of people elected (who are now no more popular than the rest of Congress) and the third never really got far enough to decide what they were protesting about.  Of these three the Tea Party is the only one to have changed US government in any way

If Americans hate their Congress so much, why don't they change it? It wouldn't take anything remotely like the amount of risk or effort that went into the Arab Spring, it would simply require organizing alternative candidates for office and voting for them (you know, like the Tea Party, except with more people.)  The common assumption is that the general population (i.e. "not me") is too ignorant/duped/stupid to do anything about it.  This doesn't make sense since 80% are not adequately duped to stop them from disapproving of Congress.  Can it be that Americans are incapable of self-organization?  I don't think so.

I think the answer is apathy.  People just don't have the necessary motivation to take the steps required to change the government.  Why are Americans apathetic with regard to their government?  I submit that the reason is that things aren't actually that bad, and the US government is run well enough to essentially satisfy its citizens.  This is about as close to political heresy as you can come in the USA, that the government does a pretty decent job.

How can I say this?  Well, it is pretty easy to think of scenarios in which the US population would not be apathetic.  Try to institute a government only source of news and entertainment, and the government would be out on its ear.  Try to round up all the Chinese and put them in a concentration camp, and the same.  If the police started coming round and locking people up for being members of the wrong party there would be actual outrage.  These aren't pie-in-the-sky scenarios, these are things happening in the world right now, or have happened in the USA within the last  80 years.

If there are examples of people doing what is necessary to change governments, and it would be easier to do so in the USA, and there are scenarios in which we are sure that Americans would act because conditions would be acceptable, and none of these things are happening then what must be the answer?  Americans have apathy towards changing their government because the conditions aren't bad enough to motivate Americans to change things.    If things aren't bad enough to require a change, then they can't be that bad.  If things aren't that bad, then the people responsible for running things aren't doing that bad of a job.

I could list a whole bunch of things I dislike about the US government, and have.  It's really easy to see how things could be run better.  The difference between "could be better" and "unacceptable" is pretty large, and while they may not know it consciously, Americans put the government nearer "unacceptable" than "could be better" in what they say, but put it closer to "could be better" than "unacceptable" in their actions.

The rhetoric, outrage, horror, and hatred that Americans portray with regard to their government is so far out of line with their actual actions towards that government that I can only conclude that it's basically fake, insincere.

A Wonderful Life

Wonder:  A feeling of surprise mingled with admiration, caused by something beautiful, unexpected, unfamiliar, or inexplicable.

I have seen the Eiffel Tower, the sun setting over the Alps, a mink by the side of a Norwegian Fjord.

I have played soccer, hockey, rugby, tennis, boules, softball, croquet, racquetball, horseshoes, darts, snooker, and pool.

I have walked in rainforests and deserts.

I have spoken in German, French, and Spanish to native speakers in their own countries.

I have truly fallen in love.

I have written a song, played it in front of an audience, and some danced.  Afterwards there was applause.

I have seen death and saved a life.

I have read, and read, and read book, after book, after book.

I have meditated and experienced what some call satori, and others call being born again.

I have seen killer whales hunt and kill a seal.

I have bathed naked in a hot spring with an eagle circling in the pure blue sky overhead.

I have got down on my hands and knees and properly played with a small child, becoming part of pure imagination.

I have experienced the darkest despair and the purest joy.

I have had a wonderful life, and I'm only halfway through.

Me More Dumber

human intelligence, mental quality that consists of the abilities to learn from experience, adapt to new situations, understand and handle abstract concepts, and use knowledge to manipulate one’s environment.

There is actually a thing, called G by psychologists, that has consistently been shown by statistical analysis to underlie the qualities outlined in the definition above.  There are certainly differences at a level above that which are more specific, mathematicians are better at abstract thought than verbal communication, but the chances are that an intelligent mathematician will be better than the average person at verbal skills.

I have been tested for intelligence by a number of tests and I have scored somewhere in the top 1% of the population.  However, all of those tests were conducted at a minimum of fifteen years ago.  I have previously always felt like I was a very clever person, although my "g" is higher than my functional intelligence, largely due to a lack of effort in many areas.  I am much better than average at most problems, but much worse than most experts in that area. I think a lot of people think they are very clever, and most of them aren't.  I tend to be concerned that my own abilities or opinions are incorrect (until I examine them) and so the objective tests are nice in that they confirm my opinion of myself.

However, recently I have felt substantially less intelligent.  There have been a number of situations in which I have had disagreements/arguments/debates with people and found myself not only wrong, but embarrassingly wrong.  I used to make bets with my wife and would usually win.  Now I usually lose. My confidence in my own intelligence has decreased, it feels like I am getting dumber.

Now, research has shown that over time g decreases, as one would expect.  The body deteriorates over time and there is no reason to think the brain operates under different rules.  However, research has shown that functional intelligence, the ability to solve problems and change the environment, remains the same.  In our day-to-day lives our ability to solve usual problems remains about the same.  the general explanation for this is that the longer you live the greater the number of skills you learn to solve problems.  A teenager faced with a real-world problem will have to guess to a certain extent, an older person may well have a method of solving such problems already.  Given an entirely novel problem young people do better.  This is why young people make lots of mistakes in their personal lives but can operate new technology.

I have generally been interested in debate, argument, to an extent challenging myself against intellectual problems (until I feel I have a basic understanding of the situation.)  It may be that over time I seek at more and more difficult problems, and the internet makes seeking out arguments about these problems easier.  People tend to argue about what they know, and perhaps this is why I have been wrong more recently.  It may be simply random chance, which looks very different to how people think of it (if there aren't clumps of similar events, it probably isn't random.)  it may be that the reduction in conversation I have with people has reduced my skills.  It may be simply that I am getting dumber (drinking alcohol regularly is bad for your brain)  it may be that I am wrong about becoming dumber.

I think intelligence is often unrelated.  Some of the happiest people I have met have been people with very low intelligence.  Most people muddle through life just fine.  Intelligence does matter in that it helps you to make better decisions, but as with all abilities decline feels like a loss.  One of the great problems for people with traumatic brain injuries (anecdotally the most miserable group of people I have met) is that they know that they used to be able to do things, even if they don't know or understand what that thing was.

Perhaps I need to be surrounded by more idiocy in my life to bolster my ego.  Perhaps I need to take more IQ tests to confirm or deny my feelings. Perhaps I should stop examining my own feelings and beliefs and just yell at everyone else for being wrong, like 95% of the internet.

Latest Update

There has been a change in our situation.  My darling wife now works for a different company.  It's basically the same job as she used to do about three years ago, so not a promotion or anything furthering her career (other than the possibility of promotion) and there's a bit more money (or a very large amount of money if you are not fabulously wealthy like us) but not enough to make a dramatic change.  The commute takes an extra hour and a half (morning and evening combined).

This doesn't sound like much of a difference, and from these basic facts it may seem to be a negative move, but that is very, very far from the truth.  Christina had worked in a nightmare of an office, as I have outlined before.  In contrast Christina has found this office to be a wonderful, affirming place.  The difference is startling, and is best illustrated by the simple fact that she used to come home and tell me a list of negative stories.  Now she comes home and tells me that she really likes people, that people tell her she is good at her job, etc..

While I was certain that a new job would be a better environment I was worried about the commute.  Two hours a day in Houston rush hour traffic is a deeply unpleasant experience, somehow combining boredom and stress in large amounts.  I thought there was a decent chance that the improved office might well be offset by the horrible commute, and the extra time away from home (about 90 minutes a day.)  However, there is a bus, and not an ordinary bus.  There is a park-and-ride stop about ten minutes from our house from which Christina can ride a very spiffy bus (upholstered coach-like seats that recline, reading lights) that is entirely populated by professionals going to work, and it stops in front of her workplace.  In this environment there is no stress, she can read, play video games on her magic tablet, or zone out listening to music.  We believe that the bus ride might make help Christina's happiness more than not riding the bus because it is meditative, soothing.

My darling wife has now started taking yoga three times a week at lunch, with co-workers!  A combination of real exercise, improved posture/bio-mechanics (I expect the required frequency of her chiropractic appointments to be reduced), taking part in an activity with others, and more meditation is wonderful.  Furthermore, she looks forward to it and enjoys it. 

In short, my wife is happy!

How about me?  My life is largely unchanged except getting up even earlier (before 6am) and being alone at home an hour or two longer during the week.  On the other hand my wife is happy, and that makes me happier.  The only real adjustments I have had to make are a certain randomness about cooking (Christina's return time varies but not as much as how hungry she ends up being) and how to fill those extra hours.

I have wrestled with a few things about my situation since I stopped working, whether my worth is in what I accomplish or how much work I do, what seems to be an unfair distribution of work from my side, and so on.  My conclusions have been that basically, as long as my wife doesn't mind, I am happy, and I'm not hurting anyone then my situation is just fine.  When my darling wife convinced me (correctly) to leave my last job she told me that she was hiring me as her "personal brain care specialist."  This seems silly, and may have only been a ploy, but I took it seriously and am actually qualified to do it.  I believe I have talked elsewhere on this blog about the acme of social work is to eliminate your own position.  The perfect result of a brain care specialist is a happy person with the insight and skills to protect and maintain that happiness.  Christina might well be better at that than I am now.  Pretty much I have eliminated my position other than regular husband stuff.

More time alone, less work to be done, a happier wife, things are better for me.  I am happy in the same way as I was a few weeks ago, just a bit more.  The struggle I have is pretty much between guilt and self-indulgence.  I "should" spend my time writing, learning Spanish, playing music, improving myself, and I do some of this, but not very much.  I want to spend my time on vacation, sitting outside by the pool with a beer, beautifully stoned in the sunshine, with music and a book.  That's pretty much what I have decided I want to do, it doesn't really get old or boring.  The moral basis of this blog is that happiness is the highest good.  I am filling my extra time by doing what I want to do.

The Plan is still in effect.  We are chipping away at the things necessary to sell this house (hot water tank tomorrow) while the housing market steadily improves.  We'll rent a house closer to the city, in an older neighborhood that suits us better and we'll give Houston, TX a second try, but this time with the ability to leave on short notice.