Search Results

Happiness is not pleasure, joy, love, or the absence of suffering. Happiness is not an emotion, but a state of being. Should we be happy? Happiness has a bad press, particularly among intellectuals. Most religions tell us that we shouldn’t look for happiness in our current life. There is too much suffering in this world; what we should do is to live a righteous life and wait for a reward of incommensurable happiness after we die. Even Buddhism is based on the idea that life is full of suffering, that can only be remedied by achieving Nirvana. This would involve a lot of toil and meditation, and probably will only come after several reincarnations. Philosophies are not better. The ancient Stoics and Epicureans taught that looking for happiness is futile. The most we could hope for is to avoid suffering by reaching a state of equanimity called ataraxia. Other ancient philosophers, like Aristotle and Plato, emphasized cultivating Virtue. More modern philosophers focused on duty or social order, when they were not utterly pessimistic. There is a reason for that. In the ancient world of limited resources and constant warfare, you had to keep the populace in a state of resignation. If people thought too much about happiness, they may decide to do something about their misery, which would inevitably lead to rebellion in a struggle to achieve a more just apportioning of resources. With the advent of democracy, education and the ideal of social justice during the Enlightenment, the goal of being happy irrupted into collective consciousness. The “pursit of happiness” was written into the Constitution of the United States. That was the first time that happiness was officially recognized as a goal of the state. And yet, many voices today criticize pursuing happiness as an unworthy goal. Chasing happiness is hedonism, a dirty word. They warn us that it would lead us to craving and perpetual dissatisfaction. There is also a lot of confusion about what happiness actually is. After thinking a lot about this, I want to examine what happiness is, and is not. Is pleasure happiness? The first confusion is between happiness and pleasure. Pleasure - like its opposite, pain - is primarily sensations and the emotions associated with those sensations. When we hear the word ‘pleasure’, we immediately think of sexual pleasure, perhaps because it is the most repressed. But there are many other physical pleasures: eating, drinking, being caressed, exercising. The satisfaction of our biological drives to survive and reproduce is pleasurable. But there are other forms of pleasure that gradually move us from the terrain of the purely physical to the mental realm. Music, for example, is one of the pleasures that has been greatly amplified in modern society. It’s something really basic: hearing a nice sound. And yet, it can be educated and developed to evoke the most sublime of mental states. The same can be said about reading, watching movies, and enjoying other forms of art. We live in the most hedonistic societies ever. Never before have so many pleasures been available to so many people with so little effort. Songs, movies, TV shows, books, photographs, paintings, dances, and other pleasurable things can be found everywhere. And this is undeniably good, isn’t it? Why would living a rich life be a bad thing? The philosophers frown and shake their heads. “You should not pursue pleasure,” they say. “It would leave you unsatisfied, empty and full of cravings. Pleasure is addictive, like a drug.” There is some truth is that. If all we wanted is pleasure, why don’t we just shoot heroin, which produces the most intense pleasure of all? Surely, pursuing pleasure cannot be the whole story. There has to be more to life. However, it is not true that pleasure inevitably entails dissatisfaction and craving. Precisely by studying the effects of addictive drugs, neuroscience has revealed that pleasure and craving are entirely different things. You can enjoy something pleasurable in a detached way, welcoming it when it comes and letting it go when it stops. When pleasure stops being scarce, we are much less likely to crave it. Conversely, we can crave things that are not intrinsically pleasurable, like revenge, fame, virtue or money. The main difference between pleasure and happiness is that pleasure is something that we experience in the moment, while happiness seems to be something that applies to our entire life. Another difference is that, while pleasure is just sensations and emotions, happiness seems to go deeper than that. But what does that mean? Is joy happiness? Another thing that gets confused with happiness is joy. Joy is an emotion, one of the six emotions that psychologist Paul Ekman identified in the facial expression of people and animals: joy, sadness, anger, fear, disgust and surprise. Joy is often the result of pleasure, but can be experienced independently of it. We can see joy in many mammals - think of a dog running free in a park. But joy is particularly rich in us humans, manifesting in our ability to smile and laugh, and branching into other complex emotions like humor, religious devotion and ecstasy. Joy is wonderful, and is hard to conceive happiness without it, but is not the same thing as happiness. By its nature, joy is energy-intensive and short-lived. Any parent knows that a child running around in a joyous state will soon be crying. Joy has an uncanny tendency to crash into sadness, its opposite. And yet, sadness does not imply unhappiness. Otherwise, why would be watch sad movies, read sad stories, listen to sad songs? We can be happy while being sad. Perhaps it is possible to be unhappy despite feeling joy. Here is a novel idea. Despite what most people think, happiness is not an emotion. Happiness is a state of being, something that affects the entirety of who we are. Suffering - the opposite of happiness - is likewise a state of being, and not an emotion. Let’s explore these ideas in more depth. Is love happiness? Love is the most hyped emotion in modern culture. Just like when we mention pleasure, sexual pleasure comes to mind; when we talk about love, most people think about romantic love. The idealization of romantic love is one of the most basic characteristics of our civilization. And yet, in the past, romantic love was not considered necessary for marriage. Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet, thousands of romance novels, and Disney movies have created a mass of people who crave romance and suffer without it. Love is not limited to romance. There are many other kinds of love, some undervalued: for our parents, for our children, for our friends. Love has also been sublimated by religion and politics into love for God and Nation. So much so that many are willing to die and kill for it. Then, the psychedelic explorers of the 60s came up with the idea that Love is the essence of the Universe and able to conquer anything. “All you need is love,” sang The Beatles. It has become impossible to separate this basic emotion from all the cultural baggage that we have attached to it. We are social animals, incapable to thrive in isolation. Science has shown that healthy bonds and a good social environment are required for good health. So, yes, love is an important ingredient for happiness. But, like it happens with joy, it’s not the whole story. Is happiness lack of suffering, ataraxia, or equanimity? However, the fact that emotions like joy and love are not sufficient to achieve happiness doesn’t mean that I agree with the philosophers who say that the ideal state is ataraxia, a state of equanimity where there is neither suffering nor happiness. Positive emotions - like pleasure, joy, love, awe, kindness, curiosity and pride - are necessary for a happy life. We don’t need to feel them all the time, just enough to live a satisfactory life. Conversely, negative emotions - like sadness, fear, anger, shame, guilt and envy - do not necessarily detract from our happiness. But if they become predominant and get out of control, they will surely make us miserable. Emotional hygiene is a requisite of a happy life. Happiness is not just the absence of suffering. If that were true, why not just kill ourselves? When we are dead, there is no suffering. However, we all have the strong intuition that life is worth living, it has to be worth living. Not having that feeling is considered a disease: depression. I think that, just like there is existential angst - a basic suffering intrinsic to just existing -, there is also existential happiness - a basic happiness that comes with just being alive. And existential happiness, in most cases, beats existential angst. Happiness and extended consciousness Let’s go back to the idea that happiness is a state of being. Neuroscientist Antonio Damasio, in his book The Feeling of What Happens, proposed that the human mind has a unique property he calls extended consciousness. It consists of being aware that we are a self (the extended self) that has existed in the past and will continue to exist in the future. Although animals have memories, they do not have this sense of being a self living through time. Based on research done by neuroscientist Bud Craig, I think that the emergence of extended consciousness in humans is due to the development of a new part of the brain cortex called the anterior insula, which is able to create hypothetical states of the body and hypothetical emotional states. The anterior insula does the thinking of “if this were to happen, this is how I would feel.” Craig thinks that the neural network formed by the anterior insula, the prefrontal cortex and the anterior cingulate cortex gives rise to human consciousness. While emotions like pleasure and joy exist only in the present, extended consciousness gives us a window to our entire life. What matters is not how we feel now, but how we felt before and how we are going to feel in the future. An animal in pain experiences it as it happens now, while a human in pain remembers all the pain he felt before and worries about the pain he will experience in the future. We are also aware that we will eventually die, and this produces an existential dread that we carry all our lives. Therefore, human happiness and human suffering have a depth that they don’t have in animals. Is happiness eudemonia and Virtue? The ancient Greek and Roman philosophers defined happiness as a life worth living, or eudaimonia, which is achieved by practicing Virtue (arête) and ethical wisdom (phronesis). This brings a new perspective about what happiness is. It is not just the emotions that we feel in the present, or the emotions that we felt in the past or may feel in the future. Happiness has a cognitive component, a series of ethical values that orient our decisions and determine how we feel about ourselves. According to this view, happiness is taking a look at who we are, and finding it satisfactory. If we hate our lives and despise ourselves for what we do, we suffer. Ethics, knowledge and values determine if we are happy or not. While I agree that living according to our values is an essential component of a happy life, that is not the whole story. We can be ethical and still be miserable. A certain measure of pleasure, joy and love is required to be happy. We need to find a balance. We should also be aware of what I call the Trap of the Ego. The ego is built during our formative years by two powerful opposing emotions: shame and pride. The praise we get when we do good things and the scorn we get when we fail or behave badly build inside our minds, creating an internal judge, the interiorization of all the figures of authority we encountered. This is our Ego. It drives us to achieve more and more, to avoid failure at all costs, to be bigger and better. When we live our lives just to feed our Ego, that’s the Trap of the Ego. If we just pursue Virtue and wisdom, it’s easy to fall into the Trap of the Ego. We believe that we are acting ethically, when in fact we are just looking to aggrandize ourselves. It’s easy for people who fall into the Trap of the Ego to, not just sacrifice themselves in their pursuit of Virtue, but to sacrifice others as well. This is how Puritanism is born. It deceives us by making us believe that only the mind, ideas and values matter, when we also need to satisfy our physical and emotional needs to be happy. But there is a deeper problem with Virtue: it is a means to an end, it cannot be an end in itself. Virtue, alone, is as empty and meaningless as pleasure. Because, in the end, how do we decide what is virtuous and what is not? Ultimately, ethical values have to be defined in term of happiness and suffering, of others and ourselves. But if happiness is to be virtuous and virtue is to achieve happiness, we are trapped in circular reasoning. We either decide that happiness is the ultimate goal, and that virtue is a means to achieve that goal, or the whole thing falls apart. Is happiness finding meaning in life? So, here is where we are. Happiness is not an emotion - it encompasses our emotions, the way we perceive our lives in the past and the future, and the way we perceive ourselves as ethical and knowledgeable beings. Happiness has emotional, cognitive, social and cultural dimensions. It extents to our whole being. That’s why I say that happiness is a state of being. Therefore, we could say that achieving happiness - understood this way - is the ultimate goal of human life. This is basically what is stated by existentialism. Still, this view leaves dissatisfied. If we just live to be happy, does it really matter if we live at all? Would the Universe be the same with and without human beings? Does human existence has any ultimate value? This is the problem of the meaning of life. It has two possible answers. Intrinsic meaning. Human life has meaning in itself. We find human life meaningful because we are humans. There is no other, external, meaning for human life. Extrinsic meaning. Human life has meaning because it is part of something larger than humanity. In some religious views, it has meaning because it is the manifestation of the will of God. Rejection of belief in God has led to the rejection of the idea that there is any extrinsic meaning. However, modern philosophies like Transhumanism postulate that humans are part of a larger evolutionary process of development of intelligence and consciousness in the Universe that will continue beyond the human stage. If intelligence, knowledge and consciousness have a fundamental value, then human existence has value not just by itself, but because it is a manifestation of those values. Putting our life in the context of an external source of meaning contributes to our happiness by giving a bigger dimension to our being. Or, at least, that’s the way I feel. Can changing our consciousness lead to happiness? There is yet another way to find happiness, with roots in Buddhism and other Eastern philosophies and in the psychedelic movement of the 60s. The basic idea is that a change in how the human mind works - a change in consciousness - is necessary to achieve profound and lasting happiness that is not dependent on external conditions and would allow us to face death. The idea of Samadhi in Hinduism and of Nirvana in Buddhism are normally understood as supernatural phenomena. However, some thinkers like Stephen Batchelor propose a secular view in which Buddhism is not a religion but a philosophy. Together with author Aldous Huxley, he thinks that Nirvana is not a supernatural phenomenon, but a transformation of the human mind that can be achieved through meditation, yoga and other disciplines. The psychedelic movement proposes that such a state is the same as the one achieved by taking drugs like LSD, mescaline or psilocybin. In my experience, mystical states are real and can change substantially our outlook on life, increasing our self-understanding and our happiness. Such experiences are accompanied by a special kind of joy - ecstasy - that improves our baseline emotional state. Meditation can also transform ourselves by helping us understand our life and manage our emotions. Conclusions Happiness is not a given. Finding it takes work. The pleasures of life, joy and love are important for happiness. They should not be rejected out of a prudishness inherited from past religious repression. But we should also avoid falling into attachment and craving. Living and ethical and wise life is another key ingredient for happiness. However, an important part of our wisdom should consist is not falling into the Trap of the Ego. At least for some of us, an external source of meaning is an important part of living a happy life. Meditation and other spiritual practices can substantially contribute to our happiness by leading us to self-knowledge, self-transformation and emotional control. Copyright 2022 Hermes Solenzol.

Vaccines come before individual freedom, just like any other civic duties Almost a year ago, on January 8, 2021, I received the first shot of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine against Covid-19. As I stepped into the both, my voice caught in my throat and my eyes filled with tears. A mixture of emotions overwhelmed me. I was humbled by the privilege of being one of the first people on Earth to be protected from this horrible disease. Being a scientist, I was fully aware of the amazing technological marvel that was about to be injected into my arm. And yes, I was happy that all the fear that I had felt for the entire year of 2020 was over. I was no longer in danger of dying or developing lifelong symptoms from the new coronavirus. I could get out of confinement and walk freely out into the world again. To this day, I am in shock, disbelief and anger that a lot of people do not see this vaccine the same way. They have to be actually compelled to receive it. It’s like having to force the passengers of the Titanic at gunpoint into one of the lifeboats. The question I examine here is: do we have the right to do that? There are several interrelated questions here The right to body autonomy is a basic human right that is the foundation of other rights. For example, we have a right not to be sexually abused because it infringes on our body autonomy. My body is mine and I decide when it should be touched. Likewise, undesired medical interventions would violate body autonomy by doing something to my body that I don’t want. Doesn’t vaccination violate this body autonomy? Depending on what vaccine is being given, it may result in harm. Most vaccine produce mild secondary effects. However, for some people, getting vaccinated can result in a serious disease. Shouldn’t taking that risk be my personal decision? In his article Vaccines Are For Winner Only @Carlos Garbiras also raised the issue that opposing vaccination is a matter of free speech. If somebody thinks that vaccines are not good, shouldn’t he be free to express his opposition? Vaccines are critically important for the common health I once heard the famous evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin say, in a lecture at UCLA, that the great improvements in the quality of life and increase in longevity brought by science were not due to new medicines as much as to two other things Public sanitation, including sewers, pest eradication, clean water, a healthy food supply, and a healthcare system that isolates and treats people before they can pass a disease to other people. Vaccines, and a system run by the state that ensures that everybody gets vaccinated. He was right. It was only thanks to these things that we were able to eliminate many of the infectious diseases that plagued humanity before the 20th century. For example, the bubonic plague, which produced many deadly pandemics in Europe, was propagated by fleas living on rats. Pest eradication played a key role in its elimination. Cholera was brought under control by a combination of water purification, sewers and vaccines. These days you hear a lot of people parroting the anti-vaxxer’s lie that vaccines are not effective. The truth is that vaccines have led to the complete eradication of two diseases: smallpox and rinderpest (in ruminants). The viruses that produced these diseases are now considered extinct. “Five more infectious diseases have been identified as of April 2008 as potentially eradicable with current technology by the Carter Center International Task Force for Disease Eradication—measles, mumps, rubella, lymphatic filariasis (elephantiasis) and cysticercosis (pork tapeworm).” Wikipedia. mRNA vaccines The current Covid-19 pandemic has a silver lining: the invention and large-scale validation of mRNA vaccines. Previous vaccines consisted of injecting viruses or bacteria that were previously deactivated - killed by heat or radiation to render them non-infective. A new step in vaccination was the use of single proteins from infectious organism to prime the immune system against them. Messenger RNA (mRNA) is a nucleic acid molecule similar to DNA that produces a protein when it is translated in the ribosomes, the little molecular machines inside cells where all proteins are made. A single molecule of mRNA can produce many copies of the protein it encodes. In a mRNA vaccine, the viral protein is expelled into the blood, where it activates the immune system. A key step in the invention of mRNA vaccines was to pack the mRNA into minuscule droplets with a lipid membrane similar to the cell membrane, called liposomes. This provides a way to get the mRNA into the cells, because liposomes fuse naturally with the cell membrane. Also, liposomes protect the chemically unstable mRNA molecule. This is also why mRNA vaccines have to be stored at very low temperatures, -80 degrees Centigrade. Liposomes are made of the same phospholipids that make the cell membranes, and therefore are non-toxic. mRNA vaccines represent an enormous breakthrough in medicine. Using the genetic code, it is easy to translate back and forth between the amino acid sequence of any protein and the nucleotide sequence of mRNA. Modern molecular biology techniques had made it possible to sequence the proteins and the DNA of most known pathogens, and also to synthesize DNA and mRNA encoding for these proteins. It is relatively simple to transduce DNA to mRNA and vice versa, using enzymes that can be purchased from any major distributor of lab products. A technique called Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) - used in any molecular biology lab in the world - can turn minuscule amounts of RNA or DNA into amounts large enough to make millions of vaccines. When you put all this together, you have a technology that can take you, in a matter of weeks, from the sequencing a protein of a new virus or bacteria to making millions of vaccines against that pathogen. We can beat the rapidly mutating SARS-Covid-19 virus using this technology. Now we have the means to eliminate all infectious diseases Therefore, the mRNA vaccine technology developed thanks to the granting of large amount of government dollars to biotech companies during 2020 have made it possible, not only to defeat this pandemic, but to get rid of any other infectious disease. There is even talk about creating vaccines against cancer by targeting proteins produced by cancerous cells. Long-sought vaccines that had defeated the efforts of scientists for decades - against HIV/AIDS, malaria and the common cold, for example - are now feasible. In less than a decade, we can rid the world of all major infectious diseases and win a major battle against cancer. We just need two things: A commitment from the governments of industrialized nations to produce the vaccines and to distribute them worldwide. Including to developing countries that cannot pay for them. A willingness from people to receive the vaccines. Both things should be no-brainers. Unfortunately, that’s where we are stuck. The ethics of vaccination Since vaccines were invented in the 19th Century, people have welcomed them as the gift to humanity they really are. Vaccination campaigns were demanded by the Left and found little opposition from the Right. The anti-vax movement that originated in wealthy elites and has now spread to anti-science conservatives has changed the equation. As I said at the beginning of this article, there are valid arguments to be made against vaccines, stemming from the right to body autonomy. I would counter them by arguing that this right is not absolute but limited by the collective right to health. Furthermore, other restrictions to body autonomy are widely recognized in the legal systems of any country in the world. I would break my argument down into the following points. Your good health is not something that was bestowed on you by nature. You owe it to the work and sacrifices of past generations. If people had not been vaccinated against smallpox, poliomyelitis, tuberculosis, rabies, tetanus, measles, etc., you may have had one of those diseases already. You may have even died from them. By getting vaccinated, you are just paying forward the favors that past generations gave you. The enormous benefits to public health brought by vaccination campaigns far outweigh any harm that the vaccines may produce to individuals. The evidence shows that these harms are minimal and preventable. Not everybody has to be vaccinated, just enough people to achieve herd immunity. However, the decision to exempt somebody from vaccination should be done by doctors, so that these exemptions are reserved to people who would be harmed by the vaccine. If anybody could capriciously exempt himself, he would take that right away from people who really need it. Getting vaccinated is not a violation of free speech. You are free to hold any opinion that you want and talk about it loud and clear. But vaccination belongs to the category of doing, not speaking. You should get that shot, even while protesting vociferously that it is not necessary. Quarantine, too, is a violation of your freedom and body autonomy. Yet, it is widely recognized that the state has the right to confine you into your house or a hospital room to prevent you from spreading a disease that you have. I have always opposed the military draft because I don’t think the state has the right to force you to undergo military training and to fight for a cause that is not yours. I was drafted myself into the Spanish military, where I serve for 14 months. I view that time as little more than slavery. I lost almost all my body autonomy: I had to sleep, eat, exercise and work as I was told, with no ability to decide how to do these things. However, if we had to fight an evil like the Nazis during World War 2 or an outright invasion of our country, I would agree that a draft was a necessary evil. If we recognize that the state has the power to force men to go into the military, to kill and be killed for the country, getting a vaccine is very little to ask in comparison. Therefore, vaccination falls squarely into the category of civic duties. Like paying taxes, following evacuation orders, getting quarantined or getting drafted. Some circumstances trump personal autonomy. Individual rights need to always be balanced against the rights of your community.

Some people come to polyamory with a secret agenda The story Janet meets Keith at the party of some common friends. He’s handsome, witty, dresses well, and drives a Mercedes. A catch, she decides. She asks around to see if he is single, but nobody seems to be able to give her a clear answer. She flirts with him, anyway, and they hit it off. Keith finds Janet sexy and charming. He takes her home and, after some hot sex, he tells her that he’s polyamorous. She can date him, if she wants, as long as she accepts that he has two other girlfriends, Lena and Mary, that he will keep seeing. Janet doesn’t like hearing that at all, but she’s falling for Keith, hard. She pretends not to be bothered by that revelation and agrees to be polyamorous with him. Keith introduces Janet to Lena and Mary and their other boyfriends. She’s all smiles and charm. For a couple of months, everything seems to work fine. Keith and Janet are deeply in NRE (new relationship energy, also known as falling in love) and enjoying their time together. Which is never enough for Janet, since she has to split it with his two other lovers. Keith advises her to date other men, but she tells him that she’s so deeply in love with him that she couldn’t possibly like any other guy. Then the drama starts. Every time that Keith wants to see Lena or Mary, there is some misunderstanding that leads to a fight. Janet starts speaking ill of his girlfriends. She has taken careful note their shortcomings and does not miss a chance to point them out to Keith. Janet learns that Keith is not out as polyamorous at work. One day, she shows up at one of his work parties and introduces herself as his girlfriend. She kisses him in public. Of course, Keith is not stupid and sees what she’s trying to do. Now that she’s the “official girlfriend”, Keith would have to be careful not to be seen with his other lovers, because then people would think that he is a cheater and a womanizer. He calls Janet on that, they have a terrible fight, and they break up. Broken-hearted, Keith goes to see Lena and tells her what has happened. Lena is furious. She calls Mary and tells her. The next day, Janet calls Keith to apologize. She could not sleep all night. She could not bear the thought of living without him. He agrees to meet with her, as friends, to talk things over. They end up having some rough sex - spanking and anal - as punishment for what Janet had done. But they are back together. Janet had gambled and won. It gets even better. When Keith tells Lena and Mary that he’s back with Janet, they get outraged and break up with him. The whole polycule (polyamorous group formed by lovers and metamours) ostracizes him. So now Janet has Keith to herself. She is careful to fill all of Keith’s time so he doesn’t have a chance to meet other women. Vacationing together, she proposes. He hesitates, but she puts the pressure on, alternating between fights and sweet making up. He agrees to marry her. Soon after the wedding, Lena calls Keith and seduces him. It’s not hard. Keith is naturally non-monogamous and he’s getting bored with Janet. Lena wants revenge. She doesn’t stay with Keith, but the dam has been broken. Keith is now a cheater and starts seeing other women. Janet knows, but pretends she doesn’t. She gets pregnant to bind Keith more closely to her. And they lived unhappily ever after. Does this situation really happen? The story is completely fictitious, of course, but I cobbled it together from some real-life situations that I have witnessed quite closely. The gender of the characters is irrelevant. The monogamous intruder could be male, or this could happen in same-sex relationship. I chose a female intruder because these days men are often portrayed as the ones that are controlling and possessive. This is not the type of situation that people imagine when they talk about polyamory, but it may be quite common. I have heard the monogamous intruder being called a “cowboy” but, as I show here, it could be as easily a woman (cowgirl?). It reflects the tension between the monogamous and polyamorous mindsets. Normally, it’s monogamous people who fear that polyamorous people would induce their spouses to cheat, but exploitation and deception can work both ways. What is unethical about Janet’s behavior? Some monogamous people would defend Janet’s behavior with platitudes like “all is fair in love and war”, “it was time for Keith the stop fooling around and settle down”, “his other relationships were not serious”, or “she saved him from living in sin.” However, if we agree that polyamorous relationships are as valid as monogamous, what Janet did is glaringly unethical. She was not honest when she entered into a polyamorous relationship with Keith - she had a secret agenda. She was in a disloyal competition with Lena and Mary, when they were not competing with her. She purposely undermined the relationship of Keith with Lena and Mary by speaking ill of them. She used the repression of monogamous culture against polyamory to her advantage, risking to out Keith at work and to slut-shame Lena and Mary for being polyamorous. She hurts Lena and Mary by purposely destroying their relationships with Keith. She was emotionally manipulative of Keith, using fights, sex and emotional blackmail to twist his will. Even when things turned sour, she was unwilling to stop the train wreck that was her relationship with Keith. She even brings a child into a dysfunctional family, where he was likely to have a unhappy childhood. Did Keith do anything wrong? Of course, Keith is not totally blameless. He’s a dupe. He sees that Janet is being manipulative and still stays with her. He’s not fair to Lena and Mary. He made a commitment to them to abide by polyamorous rules. When he sees that Janet is not playing by these rules, he should have broken up with her. He should never have allowed Janet to speak ill of Lena and Mary. He should own the drama that Janet and he introduced into his polycule. The other boyfriends of Lena and Mary are also indirectly harmed and have a right to be pissed at him. Sometimes polyamory is hard because of monogamy We often hear these days that polyamory is hard, even impossible. But polyamory wouldn’t be this hard if it didn’t have to wage an unfair fight against a monogamous culture. This story is just another example of how the scales are unfairly weighed against non-monogamous people.

Do we value knowledge for itself or just for the benefits it brings? Ethical systems and the question of the intrinsic value of knowledge Lately, I have been intrigued by the idea that the existing systems of ethics do not properly answer the question of whether some things have intrinsic value. First and foremost among these things is knowledge. Do we value it as an end or as a mean? Many religions consider the acquisition of knowledge as an act of hubris or as appropriating something that belongs to God. Thus, in Christianity the Original Sin was eating from the Tree of Knowledge, which seems to be a metaphor for learning something that we shouldn’t have learned. Later, the Tower of Babel was considered as an act of hubris that needed to be punished by confusing men - withdrawing knowledge from them. Deontology does not establish any particular duty regarding the acquisition of knowledge, although it does condemn lying about something that we already know. Consequentialism, and Utilitarianism in particular, are based on maximizing happiness for the larger number of people. More knowledge may, or may not, makes us happier. For example, knowing that we are just a speckle in the vastness of the cosmos, and that the duration of the human species is less than a heartbeat compared with the expanse of Deep Time, it is more likely to lead to despair than to happiness. So, according to this systems of ethics, not only knowledge does not have an intrinsic value, but it may not be good at all. Virtue Ethics is concerned with the moral development of individuals. For it, knowledge has instrumental value as a way to reach wisdom, prudence and other virtues. Hence, it views knowledge as a means, not as an end. Therefore, if things like knowledge, a work of art, or a species, have value in themselves, this seems to require a new system of ethics. We would need to compare their intrinsic value with the value we assign to happiness, Virtue, or the fulfillment of duty. The practical relevance of this question This is not a moot question. Modern societies are confronted with practical decisions that depend on whether knowledge has intrinsic value or not: Is it right to invest enormous amounts of money in space exploration, particle accelerators or experiments in astrophysics, when their practical application is dubious at best? Is it right to use animals for experiments that would only increase our knowledge, without any clear practical application? Should scientific knowledge be disseminated to the entire population, risking that some individuals or states would use it to do harm? The practical versus intrinsic value of knowledge The benefits of modern civilization would not have been possible without the large amount of knowledge accrued by science. There is a general agreement that investment in scientific research is justified by the technical innovations that science brings. World War II and the Cold War taught us that the country with superior scientific and technological knowledge will have the upper hand militarily. Hence, to be powerful, a country must invest in science. From the economic standpoint, science brings new inventions that contribute to the wealth of the nation. Hence, governments try to invest in the aspects of science that are related to public health, economic development and military might. But scientists constantly warn them that it is impossible to know which parts of science will contribute to new inventions, so there has to be investment in basic science. However, when they say that, scientists are not being completely honest. Most of us scientists feel in our hearts that we do science because we want to acquire knowledge for its own sake. And it’s not just scientists who feel that way. The sciences that most resonate with the general public have little or no utility: astrophysics, particle physics and evolutionary biology, for example. Pictures taken by the probes on Mars are truly awesome, but of little practical significance. Even if colonizing Mars was not a pipedream, doing so would be of little benefit for life back here on Earth. The truth is that we are inspired by discoveries in these areas because they fill us with awe. Many people feel that science is a valuable thing in itself. The dangers of knowledge Not only is knowledge no always beneficial, it could downright dangerous. There is no guarantee that continued scientific discovery will always work for the good of humanity. Some people argue that the reason why we don’t find other civilizations in the stars is because every civilization eventually makes a discovery that dooms it to extinction. Nuclear bombs provide a good example - we now have the power to destroy ourselves and much of the life on Earth. Biotech is making increasingly easy to develop new diseases, even with limited means. Imagine if future discoveries made it possible to create a black hole that swallows the Earth. Or a nanomachine (“gray dust”) that turns into itself everything it touches. Or a life form that eats the whole biosphere and becomes the sole species in the planet. The desire for knowledge is an essential part of being human And yet, we feel in our bones that learning about the world and ourselves is our destiny. Science has given us the technological marvels that make possible our comfortable societies but, most importantly, it liberated us from our ancestral fears. We no longer fear the lightning, the wind or the crashing waves. We know that they are the manifestation of basic physical laws, not of the whims of some deity that needs to be appeased. Yes, natural phenomena can still kill us, but knowing what they are gives us a measure of control over them. History has taught us that knowledge means power, comfort and freedom. But, going deeper, we are the first species that has conquered the entire planet, and we have done that because our gigantic brains allowed us to understand the world. Craving knowledge is in our DNA. Is what makes us human. I would even say that to value knowledge because it’s useful is to get it backwards. What if what makes humans valuable is our ability to gather knowledge? In our endless quest for meaning, we may find it in knowledge. Because it’s what we leave behind when we die, for others to enjoy. Or perhaps because knowledge has meaning in itself. Copyright 2021 Hermes Solenzol

This coveted state of bliss and euphoria in BDSM scenes may actually be different mental states In the BDSM community, submissive space or sub space is a special state of bliss that is achieved by the submissive or bottom partner during a Dominance/submission (D/s) scene or sadomasochistic play. This mental state is reached by means of the pain produced by impact play (spanking, flogging, etc.) or bondage. In other occasions, sub space does not involve pain, but the emotions and mental manipulation resulting from masterful Dominance and unwavering submission. It is commonly assumed that sub space is a single stated mediated by the release of endorphins and their opioid-like effect in the brain. However, the fact that it can be achieved through different means should alert us that it is not just one state but a collection of different altered states of consciousness, probably mediated by different neurotransmitters and brain areas. In previous articles, I have pointed out that some of the beliefs about sub space are supported more by myths than by actual scientific evidence. Unfortunately, sub space is often followed by sub drop, its mirror image. Sub drop a negative emotional state of dysphoria, sadness, withdrawal, physical unease and even depression experienced immediately after a BDSM scene or several days afterward. In this article, I propose here that there is not just one sub space but several, with distinctive characteristics. I need to emphasize, however, that there is almost no scientific research done on masochists. There is also very little research on the endorphin high and other altered states of consciousness produced by extreme exercise or by pain. Therefore, what I say here is speculative. It is based on my knowledge of the neurophysiology pain and emotions. I also draw parallels between the effects of drugs and the behavior of bottoms and submissives during BDSM scenes. Noradrenergic sub space The main natural response to pain is the fight-or-flight response. It consists of the activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis: the hypothalamus is a part of the brain that releases corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF or CRH) into the pituitary gland, located under the brain, which in turn releases adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) into the blood, triggering the release of the stress hormones cortisol and adrenaline from the adrenal glands located over the kidneys. Adrenaline activates the sympathetic system, increasing the heart rate, switching blood circulation from the viscera to the periphery, and promoting muscular activity. At the same time, inside the central nervous system there is a parallel activation of pathways that use noradrenaline as a neurotransmitter. Noradrenaline (or norepinephrine) is a similar compound to adrenaline (or epinephrine), it just lacks a methyl group (-CH3) attached to the amino (-NH2) terminus of adrenaline. While adrenaline is a hormone in the blood, noradrenaline is a neurotransmitter at some synapses in the brain. One important neuronal pathway that uses noradrenaline (noradrenergic pathway) goes from three noradrenergic nuclei of the brainstem (A5, A7, and the locus coeruleus or A6) down to the spinal cord. There, noradrenaline activates alpha-2 adrenergic receptors, producing an inhibitory action that suppresses incoming pain signals in the sensory nerves. This decreases pain (analgesia). Other noradrenergic pathways in the brain go from the brainstem to the cerebral cortex, activating it to increase alertness. Another noradrenergic pathway goes to the hypothalamus, activating the HPA axis. This way, noradrenergic activation in the brain is linked to sympathetic activation of the body, the stress response. In BDSM, when the bottom partner goes into this noradrenergic state, she screams, struggles, stomps and laughs. At the same time, her pain thresholds go up and she becomes more tolerant of spanking and other forms of pain. Therefore, this sub state is characterized by analgesia, mild euphoria, outward-directed attention, and high interaction with the Top. It is important to note that while the fight/flight response is considered a stress reaction, this is not necessarily a bad thing. Some forms of stress (eustress or good stress) are healthy and sought by many people. Just think of roller-coasters, horror movies and dangerous sports. A certain amount of eustress may be necessary for good health and can counter the nefarious effects of distress (bad stress). I think that BDSM is a form of eustress. The noradrenergic sub space is similar to the effect of stimulant drugs like cocaine and amphetamines These drugs act by increasing the availability of noradrenaline and dopamine at some key brain areas, particularly the pathway linking the ventral tegmental area (VTA) to the nucleus accumbens. This is known as the pleasure pathway, but it actually mediates motivation and craving. Endorphin sub space This sub space also produces analgesia (decreased pain), but in almost all other aspects is the opposite of the noradrenergic sub space. In it, the heart rate goes down, and activity and alertness decrease. The release of endorphins that leads to euphoria and analgesia is not into the blood, but occurs in some specific brain areas. The pain inhibition is driven by a pathway connecting the periaqueductal gray area in the middle of the brain with the nucleus raphe magnus in the brain stem, and then down to the spinal cord to block incoming pain signals. There are reciprocal inhibitory connections in the brain stem between the nucleus raphe magnus (which drives endorphin release) and the noradrenergic nuclei (A5, A7 and nucleus coeruleus), so that when the endorphin system gets activated, the noradrenergic system gets inhibited, and the converse. While the noradrenergic system mediates fight/flight, the endorphin system is related to freezing behavior.Freezing is a response to imminent danger alternative to fight-or-flight. Immobility helps prey to escape predators by relying on camouflage. However, freezing also happens when the animal cannot generate a successful behavior - it doesn't know what to do. It's "heads I win, tails you lose". This is not a pleasant state. It's not accompanied by the euphoria that we normally associate with endorphin release. Repeated freezing from unavoidable stress leads to learned helplessness, a dysfunctional state that decreases learning, reduces immune activity and produces several other negative responses. However, I don’t think that learned helplessness is a problem in BDSM because the submissive is actually in control because she has chosen to be in the scene and can stop it by using a safeword or other safety devices. Where learned helplessness is a real problem is in non-consensual, abusive situations in which control is taken away from the victim. As long as the BDSM scene is consensual, the state of defeat of the submissive is illusory. The endorphin sub space is similar to the effect of opioid drugs - like morphine or heroine - because endorphins activate the same receptors as these drugs: the mu and delta opioid receptors. Endorphins also produce the release of dopamine in the nucleus accumbens in the pleasure pathway, the one activated by addictive drugs. Therefore, one may wonder if continuously going into the endorphin state may not be similar to taking opioid drugs. However, unlike morphine, endorphins are rapidly degraded by peptidase enzymes in the brain. Hence, the body has its own safety mechanisms that make the endorphin high less dangerous than taking opioid drugs. A bottom in the endorphin sub space becomes dreamy, with a calm form of euphoria. He is in an emotional mist, stops screaming and struggling, and becomes less alert of his surroundings. The unresponsiveness of the bottom in this state can be risky. Many people become non-verbal. The Top partner needs to be aware of this and not rely exclusively on safewords to dial down or stop the pain. Often, the bottom will plead for the beating to go on. She doesn’t want to leave that mental state - which is why at some people call it the forever place. Serotonin sub space This is the sub space that is properly named as such, because is induced by submission and not by pain. Surrender, obedience, discipline, service and other strong intimate interactions with the Dominant likely lead to the release in the brain of oxytocin and vasopressin, which are the neuropeptides that mediate bonding. This state is similar to that produced by the drug MDMA (ecstasy or molly), which increases bonding, intimacy and affection. Since MDMA increases serotonin and dopamine at brain synapses and activates some serotonin receptors, this sub space may be driven by serotonin release in the brain. There is also evidence that the bonding effects of MDMA are due to the release of oxytocin in the brain. Serotonin produces positive mood and counters depression. However, it has mixed effects on pain because some serotonin receptors in the spinal cord increase while other decrease pain. The same goes for dopamine, which can increase or decrease pain depending on the emotional state of the individual. Whereas the noradrenergic and endorphin sub spaces are mutually exclusive, it is possible that the serotonin sub space can combine with them to produce mixed effects. It is also clear that the noradrenergic, dopaminergic and serotonergic neurotransmitter systems vary a lot between individuals. That is why it is so difficult to fine-tune antidepressant medication to each person. Therefore, sub spaces are going to vary a lot from individual to individual. Sub drop There seem to be two types of sub drop. The first type of sub drop happens right after a BDSM scene. It is likely the consequence of coming down from the fight/flight noradrenergic reaction. After a strong activation of the sympathetic system (the one that releases adrenaline into the blood) the parasympathetic system kicks in, decreasing the heart rate and cutting blood circulation to the periphery. The result is that the bottom feels cold, tired and emotionally exhausted. A blanket, lots of cuddles and emotional support are the best solution. The second type of sub drop occurs about two days after the BDSM scene. It is similar to withdrawal from MDMA. It may be the result of the serotonergic or the endorphin sub space. It is much harder to address, because it creeps in long after the scene is over, when the Top is no longer available for emotional support. It may even last several days. The best way to address it is to be ready for it and have in place an emotional support system (friends, chocolate, a good movie, etc.). Take-home message Things in a BDSM scene are not as simple as going into sub space and come out of it a happier person. The human brain is incredibly complicated; we are just beginning to understand it. By inflicting lots of pain, or messing with strong emotions like shame, guilt and submission, we are giving our minds some extreme challenges. It is hard to predict what is going to happen. The best course of action is to go slowly, pay a lot of attention to your body, and find the path that works best for you. An accomplished Top is not one who has perfected techniques so that they are going to work with anybody, but one who has learned to accurately read the body language of the bottom and knows how to adjust the scene accordingly. With special thanks to GlassHummingbird from Fetlife, who taught me some of the things I wrote in this article. Copyright 2022 Hermes Solenzol. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. If you cite parts of this article, please post a link.

“Casual sex is using another human being solely as a means to our end, which is unethical” This argument against casual sex is based on Deontology or the categorical imperative, the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant. He said that we should act according to universal laws, that is, that there are some basic ethical principles from which all duties and prohibitions derive. A categorical imperative is something that we do not do to attain a certain end, but because it is an end in itself. In particular, human beings are ends in themselves, so it is unethical to treat them as means to an end. “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.” Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. You can see how the condemnation of casual sex, and the idea of “objectification” that is used to denounce pornography, derive from this imperative of not to use people as means to satisfy our desires. However, this is an unrealistic imperative that clashes with almost everything we do in our capitalist society, in which we are constantly using the labor of other people to achieve our goals. We use barbers and hairdressers to do our hair, masseuses to relive our muscular tension, doctors to guard our health, teachers to get educated, etc. More generally, capitalism is based on using the labor of workers to produce goods and services. You may dislike capitalism, but in a communist society things are basically the same: the labor of workers is still used as a means to an end, only that it is controlled by the state instead of corporations. Using people is not unethical, as long as it is consensual and everybody involved is treated fairly. In most cases, that means getting paid. In the examples I gave above, what we have are transactional interactions in which people mutually use each other to achieve a goal. I get the haircut and the barber gets my money. If I could not get a haircut and the barber was unemployed, we would both be unhappy, which is a bad outcome indeed. What is unethical is not using people, but using people while disregarding their humanity. When I go to get a haircut, I interact with the barber as a human being, chitchatting about things that interest us both. From that point of view, we should be concerned when corporations use people with complete disregard of their humanity: as faceless workers and consumers; as mere statistics in a healthcare system; as a mass of students being lectured. That is what is wrong with capitalism. However, casual sex - as long as it is consensual and not exploitative - is not unethical because people are using each other. It is just another transactional activity: I enjoy your body while you enjoy mine. I get pleasure and you get pleasure. Even in the most impersonal casual sex, there is an implicit recognition that we are dealing with a person, with desires and sexual needs that need to be satisfied. We are not using a person disregarding their humanity, like corporations do when they treat us as machines. The fact that pleasure is an emotion prevents us from seeing each other as objects. “Sex is too intimate to be transactional, so it is unethical in the absence of love” A second argument against casual sex is based on the idea that sex is somehow special or sacred, so it is only allowed in the context of love or a relationship. Prudish philosophers like Kant and social conservatives do not seem to be bothered when capitalism and corporations use human beings - workers and consumers - as means to an end - making money -, while ignoring that humans are ends in themselves. But when it comes to sex, things suddenly change and the accusations fly about being used and objectified. Why? What is so special about sex? One old argument is that sex should be used only for procreation. As I explained in my article The Seven Enigmas of Sex, that idea has been largely put to rest by science. In humans, sex has been co-opted as a powerful mechanism for bonding and to create cooperation and trust between couples and perhaps even amongst entire tribes. Most of the sex we have is not for procreation, and that is completely morally acceptable. Even the Catholic Church is having to reckon with the fact that even the most pious couples have sex that is not procreative. But then, if sex is for bonding, wouldn’t this support the idea that sex is only ethical when done by a loving couple? Isn’t it true that sex is a most intimate act? There certainly seems to be something special about sex. Otherwise, rape wouldn’t be considered such a horrible crime - it would just be similar to any other act of physical violence. If sex is indeed special, it might be that is too intimate to be casual. We may violate something inside ourselves when we do not recognize its emotional importance. I examined the problem of the specialness of sex in my article Is Sex Sacred? I pointed out that if sex is sacred, then masturbation would also be unethical. Let me give you an example of something that is both transactional and intimate: psychotherapy. Indeed, it is even more intimate than sex, since we reveal to the therapist our deepest emotions, traumas and fears. In fact, intimacy is the whole point of therapy. In addition, the client is using the therapist for his own personal benefit. He will dispose of the therapist the moment he sees that his goal of improving his mental health is not being achieved. Again, the fact that it is transactional is an important part of going into therapy. The therapist is a professional committed not to reveal our secrets, and who doesn’t have the biases and the personal investment of a friend in whom we would confide instead. If psychotherapy is not wrong, even though it is intimate and the therapist is being used as a means to a goal, how could we condemn causal sex on the same grounds? This should get rid of the objection that casual sex is unethical because is too intimate. But what about sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)? The AIDS pandemic taught us to take STDs seriously. Ironically, comparing AIDS with the modern Covid-19 pandemic uncovers the puritanism and sex-negativity hidden behind some of the advice to prevent AIDS, like being monogamous. If during the AIDS pandemic having sex with many partners was stigmatized, during the Covid pandemic socially approved things like attending religious services became the most risky activities. But the Catholic Church and other religious organizations had no qualms of taking to the Supreme Court their right to be infected during mass. And the Supreme Court ruled in their favor. Of course, preventing STDs in others and ourselves by practicing safe sex and being informed is extremely important. However, STDs should not become an excuse for sexual repression. We all have the right to engage in risky behavior. Otherwise, risky activities like rock-climbing, hang-gliding, free-diving and driving motorcycles would be illegal. We do not have the right to expose others to STDs, but this should be addressed by the responsible exchange of information between sexual partners, not by rules imposed by society and the state. Casual sex and sexual repression For some people, casual sex is something that they would never do. They need love and connection for sex, and that is fine. But some other people want to practice casual sex. And they have the right to do so. For young people, having sex with many partners is useful to help them define their sexual desire, and their favorite kinks and sex acts. That way, they would be able to identify sexually compatible partners for future long-term relationships. The question is not one of personal choice, but whether casual sex should be something that we condemn in others, to the point of creating social sanctions and even laws (e.g. against sodomy, pornography or prostitution) to ban it. I think the latter is wrong. The modern sex-positive movement is a struggle for sexual liberation, understood as the right of every person to approach sex according to their own personal preferences. The only prohibitions should be non-consensual acts and sex with minors. It’s actually the other way around. What is unethical is sexual repression, not casual sex. Sexual repression should, indeed, be considered a non-consensual sex act. Just as sexual abuse and rape are wrong because they violate the personal autonomy of an individual, sexual repression violates the right of that individual to their bodily and mental autonomy.

The story Olivia and Paul are polyamorous. They have been married for many years. All that time, they have had an open relationship, transitioning to polyamory more recently. Olivia loves to ski, but Paul hates the snow. So Olivia joined a ski club in Los Angeles that organizes group outings to the Big Bear and Mammoth ski resorts. On a weekend trip to Mammoth, Olivia met Quentin, a younger guy and a great skier. They had great fun skiing together and felt a strong mutual attraction. When Quentin made a pass at her, she explained that she was married and polyamorous. She would love to date him if he was okay with that. He said that he had never been polyamorous before, but he was willing to give it a try. He also disclosed that he had been having sex with Rebecca, another woman in the ski group. Olivia said that she was okay with him having a relationship with Rebecca - that’s what being polyamorous is all about - but he needed to check if Rebecca agreed to this polyamorous arrangement. Quentin replied that this would not be necessary because he never had an exclusivity agreement with Rebecca. Their relationship was entirely casual. Olivia replied that, even so, Rebecca needed to be informed of Quentin’s relationship with other people. Quentin argued that he didn’t want that his relationship with Olivia became known to Rebecca or anybody else in the ski group. Since they knew that Olivia was married, he would be labeled an adulterer and a womanizer. He cautioned Olivia that she would also be considered a cheater. Olivia told him that she didn’t like secrecy, and that she would have to tell Paul because that was an important part of the agreement in their marriage. In fact, she wanted Quentin to come home and meet Paul. That’s the way they normally did these things, she explained. Quentin came over for dinner and he got along fine with Paul. Still, he later insisted that Olivia did not tell Paul intimate details about him. She thought that was reasonable. Quintin seemed a very private person. She also realized that it would be hard to explain polyamory to the whole group and agreed to keep her relationship with Quentin a secret. Time went by, and the relationship between Olivia and Quentin worked quite well. They fell in love with each other. Quentin took her several times to his apartment. Clearly, he wasn’t keeping any secrets from her. Still, he went out occasionally with Rebecca and never told her that he was dating Olivia. Their time together was mostly during the trips with the ski group, and it became increasingly awkward to keep their relationship a secret. Quentin insisted that they booked separate hotel rooms. In the middle of the night, he sneaked into Olivia’s room to have sex. Quentin was naturally secretive and demanded that Olivia did not divulge to the group many details about his life. She often wondered what others knew, and what she could and could not tell. But the worse part was that, since Rebecca was single, Quentin had no problem kissing her and having public displays of affection with her. After many years of being polyamorous, Olivia had learned not to be jealous, but it bothered her that people saw Rebecca as Quentin’s girlfriend. She actually liked Rebecca and worried that she would be hurt if she ever found out about her relationship with Quentin. There were even awkward days in which the three of them skied together. It was Quentin who was the most uncomfortable in those situations. She told Olivia that it was her who he loved. Olivia didn’t know if that was true. However, one day Quentin and Rebecca got into a fight. Quentin took Rebecca down the Wipeout Chutes, a double-black diamond run in Mammoth. Rebecca had fallen, sat down on the steep slope, and insisted that she would not move until the ski patrol came to help her. Quentin waited with her for hours. Afterwards, she was mad at him for putting her in danger, and he was mad at her for freaking out and not skiing the chute, something that he thought she was capable of doing. They broke up over that. When ski season was over, Olivia kept seeing Quintin through the summer. But, somehow, the magic was gone, and they drifted apart. When the next ski season came, Quentin had a fiancée. Soon, he married her and moved to another state. Olivia kept skiing with Rebecca and the ski group, but she never told anybody them about her relationship with Quentin. Like all my other stories in the “When Polyamory Goes Wrong” series, this one is fictitious, but based on real-life situations I have witnessed. I made up the names of the characters following the alphabet - we have gotten to the R for Rebecca, so far. Was it wrong for Quentin not to tell Rebecca about his relationship with Olivia? I think it was. Even if Quentin had a casual, non-exclusive relationship with Rebecca, she deserved to know. Any relationship entails physical (STDs) and emotional risks, and people in them should be informed of the existence of other sexual partners. Rebecca could have fallen in love with Quentin and get hurt when she eventually found out that he was dating Olivia. Besides, non-monogamy is ethical when everybody involved is fully informed. Should Olivia had told Rebecca? That’s a more difficult question. It was Quentin’s obligation to tell Rebecca, not Olivia’s. If she told Rebecca, it could have been taken the wrong way: as a put-down, as a declaration of war over Quentin, or as something that Olivia said just to hurt her. There is simply no gracious way Olivia could have told her. If things turned sour, a likely outcome was that Rebecca would have revealed the relationship to the group, confirming Quentin’s fears. Olivia had other options. She could have broken up with Quentin, or threatened to do it if he didn’t tell Rebecca. Some people are often a bit cavalier about wanting other people to break their relationships when they are less than perfect. In reality, sexual attraction and love weigh quite heavily, and we are willing to make hard compromises to keep the relationship. Olivia did not compromise about telling her husband Paul. She did right on her side of the polyamorous interaction. Was it wrong for Olivia and Quentin to keep their relationship secret? This is just another example of in-the-closet and out-of-the-closet problems. Quentin drew Olivia into a polyamorous closet, just like some gays who are in the closet force their boyfriends into the closet with them. The polyamorous closet should not be taken lightly. In my experience, in the progressive areas of the developed world, it’s far easier to be openly gay than to be openly polyamorous. Been openly kinky falls somewhere in between. When you think about it, there are some clear reasons why monogamous people fear polyamorous people. If somebody is gay, he is not going to interfere with your relationship, whereas a polyamorous person could potentially seduce your partner. Moreover, the mere existence of polyamorous people represents a direct challenge to the beliefs and values of monogamous people, like the sacredness of sex, the justification of jealousy or the demonization of sexual infidelity. For these reasons, it is likely that at least some people in the ski group would have ostracized Olivia and Quentin for having a relationship. This would have snowballed through the group until they were completely marginalized. If Olivia would have come out to the group as polyamorous before she started dating Quentin, she could have softened the blow. But she didn’t do that because it’s quite comfortable for married polyamorous people to pass as monogamous, just like some bisexual people choose to pass as heterosexual. It was not completely unreasonable for Quentin to demand privacy, especially considering that he was new to polyamory. It turned out that polyamory was just a phase for him. There is nothing wrong with people experimenting with polyamory and then going back to being monogamous. Yes, one of the core values of polyamory is not being secretive. However, in the face of societal repression, many polyamorous people live partially or completely in the closet. The social stigma attached to sexual infidelity and open sexuality is very strong. Conservatives see polyamory just as an excuse for adultery and debauchery. We should keep that in mind when we condemn cheaters and people who practice casual sex. We may find ourselves in the same boat.

How a sadist creates an enjoyable BDSM scene by empathizing with the submissive BDSM (Bondage, Dominance-Submission, Sadism and Masochism) is an erotic activity practiced by millions of people. Many books have been written about its different facets. As in the case of homosexuality and other alternative sexual practices, scientific research is dispelling the belief that it’s unhealthy, done by sick or traumatized people, or that it leads to abuse. What makes a good BDSM top? For many, the answer to this question is to master technical skills: knowing how to perform elaborate bondage, or how to use a flogger, a riding crop, a paddle, a single tail whip, etc. All that is good, but over the years I have found that what really makes a good top is something entirely different: the ability to read and manipulate the mental state of the bottom. The top has to trip the bottom out of her ordinary mental state by frighten her with pain, lure her with pleasure, make her feel helpless and humble, until she reaches a magical place of here-and-now, pure sensation, and ultimate fantasy. At the same time, the top has to be careful not to be left behind. Only by hooking deeply into the mind of the bottom can he achieve a comparable experience. When the bottom reaches that magical place, he wants to be there with her. What makes a good BDSM bottom? Here, technical skills obviously do not count. Sure, a bottom has to be submissive but, for me, pure submission can be boring. I order, you obey… end of the story. Resistance makes it more interesting, because it gives the top a chance to use all the tricks in his repertoire. However, when both the top and the bottom are experienced, a conundrum arises: the bottom can resist as much as she wants and, when she finally submits, it is only out of her own volition, rather than because she has been forced by the top. This dynamic may end up feeling a bit fake. It may be better to pursue a different goal in the scene: to get the sub into a particular mental state. Submission, then, becomes a mean and not an end. The bottom submits to the top because she cannot achieve that mental state by herself. The same way that a good top is one that is able to take the bottom to that state, a good sub is one that engages the top in the dance that leads there. That requires a certain amount of surrender, and more: lowering the defenses, making herself vulnerable, releasing the emotions, letting go of the ego. What does that magical state feel like? For me, it feels like liberation from old psychological bonds. Shame, guilt, fear and anger fade away. Pain loses its power over us. There is a surrender that feels not like an obliteration of the self, but a harmony of feeling and purpose between the partners. How do we achieve that magical state? The key here is the ability of the top to read the bottom. This is called empathy. We have special areas in our brain that let us feel the mental states of others. For example, when the top strikes the bottom, empathy lets him feels the pain that she experiences. This is the key of the pleasure of the sadist: it is only by becoming conscious of the pain he is inflicting that he can truly feel the power of his action and fulfill his kinky desires. Ideally, however, the top should be able to experience the pain as the bottom experiences it, not as he would experience it if the same things was done to him. So the bottom has a job to do, too: she has to allow herself to be read. She has to be true in her reaction. A sub that does not flinch, or one that fakes her reactions, is unhelpful. This applies to other emotions as well, besides pain. The top has to be able to feel the humiliation, resistance and surrender of the bottom. All this requires focus and skill. He has to become exquisitely aware of every change in expression in the face of the bottom, every nuance in her voice, in her cries, every bit of tension in her body. Managing negative emotions Some emotions are undesirable in a scene, and the top needs to know how to direct the bottom away from them. The main one is anger, an emotion that if is left to run its course is guaranteed to ruin any scene. The best thing is to nip it in the bud. If the bottom (or the top!) has become overtly angry, it may be best to take a break and work things out. Anger is so powerful that it can exclude any other emotions. And no, you cannot beat anger out of a sub. Other negative emotions, like fear and shame, can be okay as long as they don’t become overpowering. Keep them under control. Compassion As the top deepens his empathy for the bottom, he may realize that the emotions he is evoking were there before the scene. There is old shame, old guilt, old anger, old self-hatred. Even the real pain we feel right now reproduces the pain of old wounds, physical or mental. At this stage, the scene can become something transformative for the bottom, a healing experience. Empathy opens the door to sharing deeper suffering. In a less clear way, the suffering of the top may come to the surface to be recognized and healed. We have now gone beyond empathy, and the scene has become alive with something even more profound and meaningful: compassion. Compassion is the deep understanding of our own suffering and the suffering of others, accompanied by a desire to heal it. In BDSM, we immerse ourselves in pain to understand it better and become able to liberate ourselves from suffering.

I lost consciousness during a deep freedive, but a strange vision saved me from drowning Return to Galicia, land of my childhood The day I cheated death dawned bright and sunny. I awoke in my father’s beach house in Galicia, Spain. I had come from the United States with my American girlfriend to vacation with my family. It was July 1988, and I was 31, in the prime of life and still brimming with that sense of immortality enjoyed by the young. Galicia is a Celtic country in the northwest corner of Spain. Surrounded by the cold waters of the Atlantic, it is misty, rainy and green. It features tall mountains, deep valleys and a jagged coast of bays, islands, white sand coves and granite cliffs. That is the place where I grew up. It always entices me back with the feeling of morriña – a deep and abiding longing for this magical land. The southwest coast of Galicia is marked by a series of bays called the Rías Baixas. Protected by mountains from the prevailing north winds, their water warms enough in the summer for swimming, sailing and diving. The beach of Menduiña, where my family’s summer house is located, is a jewel on the eastern shore of the Bay of Aldán, the smaller of those bays. I spent the summers of my childhood there, learning to swim and, soon after, to freedive. Freediving Freediving is diving while holding your breath. It is different from scuba diving - in which you breathe from a tank of compressed air - and from snorkeling - in which you swim at the surface breathing from a snorkel. Competition freediving consist in diving as deep as possible. The world record, held by Herbert Nitsch, is at 214 meters (702 feet). Most people freedive to spearfish, catch shellfish or sightsee. These dives are shallower, and the objective is to maximize bottom time. In Spain, spearfishing is only legal while freediving. Freediving became my passion in my early teens. The water was cold, but that barely slowed me down. After seeing me repeatedly exit the water shivering near hypothermia, my father bought me one of the first wetsuits sold in Spain. Soon afterwards, he gave me a compressed-air speargun. By age 15, I was diving to 12-15 meters (40-50 feet), and even deeper, just for fun. I often brought home enough fish to feed my parents and seven siblings. Gone spearfishing In 1988, I had been abroad several years working as a neuroscientist, first in Paris and later at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. This holiday was an opportunity to revisit the aquatic pleasures of my youth. A neighbor, Fernando, offered his company and his Zodiac inflatable boat for a spearfishing adventure. I still had my dive gear and was eager to relive the good old times. We motored to one of my favorite diving spots: a rocky reef surrounded by deep water that had plenty of fish. Soon I had bagged several large sargos (Diplodus Sargus), a delicious species and my favorite catch. However, Fernando was having trouble. The tide was a bit high and he couldn’t dive as deep as I could. So we decided to leave the reef and go to the nearby bateas, where we could spearfish from the surface. Bateas are unique to the bays of Galicia, where they are used to cultivate mussels and oysters. They are stationary rafts consisting of floats that support a grid of logs. Thick ropes hang down and descend deep into the water. Mussels are attached to the ropes, and when they grow large enough they are harvested by pulling up the ropes. The mussel-encrusted ropes form columns up to two feet thick. In the shadows between, sea life flourishes. These artificial reefs are simple and eco-friendly ocean farms. The temptation We tied the Zodiac to a batea about half a mile from the shore. I jumped in the water without my speargun, since I had caught all the fish I wanted. But it wasn’t long before my partner came looking for me. “I dropped my speargun when I jumped in the water,” he said. “Can you dive to the bottom and get it?” “You’re crazy!” I said. “Do you have any idea how deep it’s here? It must be at least 20 meters! I can’t possibly dive that deep.” “Never mind, then. I brought another speargun.” He grabbed his other speargun and swam around the batea, looking for a place where we hadn’t spooked the fish. I went sightseeing, diving down the fantastical columns formed by the mussel-encrusted ropes. It is scary to dive when you cannot see the bottom, just a blackness that my imagination turns into a frightening abyss. However, when I dove to the end of the ropes, the clouds of plankton opened up and the water became very clear. I saw rocks at the bottom and, sure enough, there was Fernando’s speargun, daring me to come down and grab it. I swam back to the surface. It was otherworldly and beautiful in the depths. I asked myself, was I being honest when I said that I couldn’t dive that deep? The truth was, I didn’t know. I had probably done it before but, not having a depth gage, it was impossible to know for sure. On the other hand, I haven’t been diving for a while. But I was in top shape. The water felt like home. I decided to go for it. The dive I prepared meticulously. Floating effortlessly at the surface, I closed my eyes and relaxed. Then I started my hyperventilation routine. After a couple of minutes, I took some last deep breaths and filled my lungs to their maximum capacity. My chest felt uncomfortably over-inflated, but I knew that this sensation would disappear as I descended. I pinched my nose through my mask. Bending sharply at the waist, I went upside down with my legs high in the air. As soon as my fins hit the water, I swam as fast as I could, going straight for the bottom. I repeatedly blew through my nose in the Valsalva maneuver to keep the pressure from hurting my ears. A freedive demands full, unhesitating commitment. I had to race to the bottom as fast as possible to minimize my use of oxygen. I kicked my fins with a steady rhythm, conserving energy. The diving reflex kicked in, and I felt my heart slowing down. I was suffused with a sense of peacefulness and power. Fifteen meters down, my lungs were empty, compressed by the surrounding pressure of the water. Further down, they fully collapsed and I felt my throat sinking into my chest. It’s a weird feeling, but I was used to it after many years of freediving. Like my lungs, the air cells in my thick neoprene wetsuit compressed with the pressure. A wetsuit makes you float so much that it’s impossible to dive. To compensate, you wear a belt with enough weights to make you are just a bit positively buoyant at the surface. However, as pressure compresses the air cells in the neoprene, you turn negatively buoyant. That means that, past a certain depth, you sink. The only way back to the surface is to swim up. With the combined speed of sinking and swimming, I nearly crashed against the rocks at the bottom. They were bare of the gorgeous seaweed common in Galicia. I was so deep that there was not enough sunlight for seaweed to grow. I saw the speargun and grabbed it. That’s when things started to go wrong. Competition freedivers know that the moment you turn around to go back to the surface is decisive. If you don’t get it just right, you can waste too much energy and oxygen. That’s what happened to me. I wasn’t used to hit the bottom and go back up. I normally swam at the bottom and then head for the surface. As ascended, the air hunger kicked in, stronger than I expected. I should have released my weight belt or, even better, unbuckled it and held it in my hand, so if I passed out I would drop it to the bottom. But I didn’t feel the need to do that. I just swam to the surface as fast as I could. That gave me enough momentum to reach a depth at which I became positively buoyant. Even though I lost consciousness on my way up, I floated to the surface. The lamas I found myself on a vast plain. Two Buddhist monks stood next to me, their saffron robes shining in the sun. One of them was talking, and I listened in amazement at his wisdom. They were looking at each other, not paying attention to me. I interrupted him to ask a question. “I am glad that you like my teachings,” said the lama, turning to look at me. “But you have more pressing problems right now.” “What problems?” “You are drowning.” “Not, I am not. How can I drown here, on dry land?” “Can’t you feel the taste of salt water in your mouth?” I tried to taste my mouth and, sure enough, it was full of salt water. Something yanked me away from the plain. I was at the surface, being gently rocked by the waves. The lama was right. I was about to die. I ripped my snorkel out of my mouth, stuck my head out of the water, and took a deep breath of air. The recovery Floating in the water, I felt like was about to pass out again. I put the snorkel back into my mouth and blew it clear of water. That way, I could breathe even if I was unconscious. The corner of the batea was just above my head, so I pulled myself onto it and balanced precariously on the logs until Fernando returned. We motored back to the beach and hauled our gear and my catch to the house. I briefly told my American girlfriend what happened, and that I felt sick and was going to bed. “What can I do?” she said, shocked, terrified and relieved at the same time. “Eat the fish,” I replied. Shallow water blackout and hyperventilation What happened to me is called shallow water blackout or hypoxic blackout. Counter-intuitively, it is more common among experienced freedivers than among beginners. The diver loses consciousness underwater from oxygen deprivation. Unable to regain the surface, or to breathe at the surface, he drowns. Paradoxically, deep diving helps you hold your breath longer. As pressure increases, more oxygen crosses the walls of the alveoli of the lungs into the blood. However, when the diver ascends there is a drop of pressure in the lungs that accelerates oxygen depletion. This is why loss of consciousness happens during the ascent, hence the moniker “shallow water blackout.” Being a scientist, I did some research on the physiology of freediving and hypoxic blackout. I was not willing to give up my underwater passion, especially since we had moved to California, which is as rich with sea life as Galicia. I just had to find a way to do it safely. Doctors blame shallow water blackout on hyperventilation, and recommend against it. They argue that it cannot increase blood oxygen because red blood cells are saturated with oxygen when they leave the lungs. What hyperventilation does is to decrease blood CO2, which is what triggers ‘air hunger’- the need to breathe. Oxygen gets depleted while CO2 is still low, making the diver feel that he can still hold his breath. Below a certain oxygen level, the brain shuts down and the diver loses consciousness. The more experienced the free diver, the more she is able to hold her breath to the limit. This explains why experienced free divers are more susceptible to hypoxic blackout. Does hyperventilation increase oxygen storage? Most freedivers still practice hyperventilation because experience tells them that it substantially increases bottom time. Not any hyperventilation will do; there are special techniques that are better at saturating the body with oxygen. I use kapalabhati, a yoga breathing method that I have been practicing since college. There is a scientific explanation why hyperventilation works. First of all, it is not true that normal breathing completely saturates the blood with oxygen, especially if you have a high red blood cell count, as do many athletes. Measured with a pulse-oximeter, my blood oxygen at rest is not 100%, but 94%. This may not seem much of a difference, but it is when you consider that the hemoglobin in red blood cells supplies other oxygen stores in the body. The main one is the myoglobin of the muscles, a protein that has the same heme molecule as hemoglobin. It is used to store oxygen for muscle consumption. The brain has a heme-containing protein called neuroglobin, so it also can store a small amount of oxygen. The importance of myoglobin in storing oxygen while diving is underscored by its presence in marine mammals. Seals, whales and dolphins have lots of myoglobin in their muscles, which they use to store oxygen while they dive. Striped dolphins and false killer whales have 10 times as much myoglobin (66 mg/g) as dogs (7 mg/g) or rats (2 mg/g). Humpbacked, dusky and bottlenose dolphins have somewhat less myoglobin (23 mg/g). Humans have 15-40 mg myoglobin per gram of dry muscle; however, these numbers would be much lower if expressed per gram of fresh muscle, which are the amounts given above for cetaceans. Myoglobin does not release oxygen back into the blood. Muscles consume the oxygen it stores instead of oxygen in the blood, leaving more oxygen available for other tissues. Using oxygen stores in their blood and muscles, elephant seals and some whales can dive for up to two hours, while dolphins remain underwater for 8-10 minutes. Trained freedivers can dive to 70 meters for 2 minutes or more. The world record of static apnea (holding your breath without diving or swimming) is a stunning 24 minutes and 33 seconds. It was achieved after hyperventilating in pure oxygen, which proves that it is possible to store a great deal of oxygen in the human body. If not hyperventilation, what caused my blackout? I attribute my blackout to a combination of causes: Not having been freediving for several years. Doing repeated deep dives without enough recovery in between. Diving too deep for my current abilities. Being tired after a long session of diving. Based on marine charts and scuba diving later on in that area, I estimate that my dive was to 18-20 meters (60-66 feet). Years later, I repeatedly dove to 75 feet off Casino Point on Catalina Island. That time I had a depth gauge, and several scuba divers watching for safety. I used hyperventilation and reached the surface comfortably. Near-death experiences The most intriguing question is not why I passed out, but why I recovered consciousness. Many divers drown at the surface when they are unconscious, unable to blow their snorkel clear of water to breathe. If the brain shuts down for lack of oxygen, one would expect that it would not recover unless its oxygen supply is restored. So, why did I wake up to save my life? There are many reports of ‘near-death experiences’ - the visions and feelings of peace that some people experience when going into terminal shock or approaching death. Similarly, I was overcome with peace and a sense of being near a source of wisdom. I practiced Zen Buddhism at the time, which may explain why, instead of seeing God or a gate to Heaven, I saw wise Buddhist monks. Maybe, in extreme conditions, the mind goes through an altered state of consciousness that is interpreted through the lens of the beliefs of the individual. I do not believe in the supernatural or life after death, and this experience did not change my mind. I think what matters is not the visions, but the emotions and the altered state of consciousness that accompanies them. Near-death experiences may be triggered by the anomalous state of the dying brain. Sleep is an active state in which one part of the brain, the reticular formation, turns off other parts of the brain. Terminal unconsciousness is different: parts of the brain may be activated or inactivated at random, depending on their need for oxygen. Near-death experiences may produce a decoupling of brain regions similar to that produced by psychotropic drugs. Or maybe this process is not random at all. Since drowning and accidental unconsciousness were common in our evolutionary environment, perhaps we evolved a mechanism to jump-start the brain as a last resort for survival. For example, there could be a release of noradrenaline or corticotropin-releasing factor and in the amygdala to trigger a fight-or-flight response and thus wakefulness. This noradrenaline release was read by my mind as the monk telling me that I was drowning… Get out of your peaceful, near-death Nirvana, and fight for your life!