Things They Should Invent: Partial Marriage Contracts

The institution of marriage has a lot of different aspects. There's the romantic aspect. There's the forever aspect. There's the fact that spouses are automatically each other's next of kin. There's the fact that they are to be treated as a unit, legally and socially. There's the fact that they live together. There's the fact that they often have children together.

However, sometimes a person might be in a relationship that has some of these aspects, but not all. This kind of relationship, even though they are likely the most important relationship in the person's life, has no legal or social status. You might want to share a home or raise a child with someone, but not want a romantic relationship with them. You might want to be legally considered a household unit, but not want the obligation of "forever." You might fully intend to love someone forever, forsaking all others, but the two of you just cannot manage to live together.

So what we need is legally binding contracts that involve only some of the aspects of marriage. For example:

The common-law contract: I use the word common-law because this most resembles the concept currently described as common-law marriage. However, the problem with common-law marriage is that a cohabiting couple are automatically considered common-law after a certain period of time. So if you've been together romantically for 10 years but only moved in together last week, you don't get any of the benefits of common-law marriage. Conversely, if you've been living together for a year (I think it's 1 year - if not, insert the appropriate period of time) then you are automatically considered common-law married, whether you like it or not. The alternative I propose is that two people living together sign a contract that makes them "partners". They are then considered a family-style household, rather than roommates, with all the related legal benefits. Perhaps there could be a temporary version and a permanent version, with the permanent version requiring a "divorce" and splitting of assets if the relationship comes to an end. The common-law contract would not have the implication of a romantic relationship, although the couple is certainly free to have a romantic relationship if they choose. They would be considered equal to a married couple under etiquette, so they'd be invited to weddings etc. together. A couple doesn't have to live together for a certain period of time - they can sign the common-law contract on the very day they move in together, if they so choose.

The next-of-kin contract: This is a public declaration of a certain person as your next of kin. I am aware of the existence of living wills, but if no one can find your living will (or you're unconscious and can't tell them where it is) then your next living relative will be considered your next of kin, even if you want it to be your best friend or your roommate or your longtime lover. With this contract, your next of kin will be as much a matter of public as your spouse.

The non-cohabiting marriage contract: I know a number of couples who love each other forever, but simply are not compatible to live together. The stress of living together would ruin their relationship, so they live apart. By all rights they should get to enjoy the benefits of marriage, but their marriage would be considered null and void in our society, which makes living apart for a prolonged period of time grounds for divorce. Under this contract, a couple would get all the benefits of marriage, with the implications of romance and forever, but they would be permitted to maintain separate households. Under etiquette and "morality" they are considered a married couple, so they are invited to social events together, and it is just as acceptable for them to share a bed as it is for a cohabiting married couple.

The co-parenting contract: Suppose you want to have a child, but you do not have an appropriate romantic partner with whom to have a child. But suppose you know someone who would be the perfect co-parent, they just aren't appropriate to be a romantic partner. They might be an incompatible sexual orientation, or they might be a blood relative, or they just might be someone with whom you are not romantically compatible. Under this contract, two people can legally be considered primary custodial parents of a child without the other implications of marriage. They may live together or apart (although logistically they would probably have to live at least close to each other), and they can share the other legal benefits of marriage. They can be considered a couple socially, or they might prefer not to - it's up to them. I am aware of adoption, but this system is specifically designed to normalize the concept of two roommates parenting a child together.

Things I don't understand

One thing I really don't understand is people with absolutely no tolerance whatsoever for complaining/bad moods.

This seems to be primarily an internet phenomenon. Someone in a blog or an online community or a character in work of fiction being discussed complains about something or is having a hard time or is anything other than bright and cheerful and amusing, even for a moment, and someone is jumping down their throat telling them to stop moaning and complaining and be fun and amusing again. (Which I, personally, find more annoying than the original complaining - and I haven't even had this happen yet when I was the one complaining!)

I find myself wondering what it's like to be in that kind of brain, because I really cannot wrap my mind around being so pissed off that someone is in a bad mood that you feel the need to reprimand them. I have had situations where I found someone's bad mood tiring, but my instinct is to help them if I can, and then back off until I and they get into a place where their mood does not exhaust me. I cannot fathom a grown adult having so little patience and/or empathy and/or tact that they feel the need to scold people who are in a bad mood or having a difficult time for not being completely cheerful.

Focusing on one's career

I don't like it when people say that I'm "focusing on [my] career." I find that phrase is kicked around a lot to mean "not married/not breeding", but the thing is, I'm NOT focusing on my career. Yes, I have a job. I go to work and I earn money to support myself, because I am not independently wealthy. But "focusing on one's career" sounds cold, calculating, driven, Slytherin, as though I'm trying to manoeuvre my way to the top or into some desirable position, which I'm not.

I'm focusing on mi cielito and my friends and loved ones and on becoming a well-read, well-rounded individual. I am not yet married because of my youth, combined with various circumstances beyond my control, and I am not breeding because I don't want to. My career has nothing to do with it. It's just a job where I exchange my expertise for financial security, is all.

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close by Jonathan Safran Foer

I am in love with the protagonist of this book. He is my soulmate. Unfortunately, he's only nine years old. And fictional.

He's an eccentric, eclectic little boy, possibly with Asperger Syndrome. His father died in the World Trade Centre, and he's on a mission to find the lock that belongs to a key left behind by his father. But this summary hardly does justice to the story. It's beautiful and tragic and bittersweet and better than the sum total of thoughts I'll ever have in my life. And the author's only three years older than me. (Insert brief OMG I'll never amount to anything angst here).

This book is on par with Life of Pi or The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime. Read it now!

The weather, the weather, let's blog about the weather

Today was awesome!

The storm was so bad around 3-4 that we had literally zero visiblity out the windows of the office! Thunder was rumbling constantly! Unfortunately my cube doesn't have a window, so I didn't get the full visual effect.

I had the good sense to take the bus home from the subway, so I only had to walk one very short (urban residential) block, but I got - literally! - soaked to the skin! I was wearing long pants and a 3/4-sleeve blouse and carrying an umbrella, but I got so wet that when I got home I had to change all my clothes - even my underthings! I was wearing shoes with about a 2-inch platform, but the rivers of water flowing along the roads were well up to my ankle. There was even water bubbling up out of manholes!

My balcony is a swimming pool despite the fact that its walls are solid concrete and it's completely overhung by the balcony above, my purse is soaked through despite the fact that it's scotchguarded leather, and i had to towel off my calves and feet because they were so wet, despite the fact that i was wearing long pants.

Now THIS is weather!

Technical difficulties

When I try to access www.theweathernetwork.com and www.sitemeter.com, I get an HTTP 400 Bad Request error. I have disconnected and reconnected my DSL, and it persists. I'm using Sympatico.

I don't expect any good to come of this post - it's just Google fodder.

My brain hurts

There are fish in Lake Ontario.

There are fish in Lake Erie.

Lake Ontario is connected to Lake Erie by Niagara Falls.

So how did the fish get up and/or down the falls?????

Gaza

Thank you to all the Gaza protestors for proving my long-argued point that just because a leader encourages or implements a particular policy doesn't mean the people are going to go along with it.

Things that occurred to me today while I was trying to work

1. From a purely logical perspective, sneezing should have just as much comic value as farting.

2. If there is a god, it should, being omnipotent, be able to communicate to every single human being what it wants us to do or believe in such a way that every single human being will understand and obey. However, the human race is not unanimous on what our gods want us to do or believe. This leaves us with four options: a) there is no god, b) there is a god and it doesn't care what we do or believe, c) there is a god and it doesn't want the same thing of every individual, so each of us is already doing what this god wants us to do or believe, or d) there are many gods, all with differing expectations, and we each fall under the jurisdiction of different ones.

3. Parents complain about their kids "talking back". Sometimes they even punish them for it. Isn't that the stupidest thing ever to define as a misbehaviour? "OMG! My kid didn't just quietly accept what I said without questioning it and is instead apply critical thinking skills and/or asking follow-up questions! OMG! My kid didn't psychically pick up that this is the point at which I arbitrarily wanted them to shut up!"

4. In ecology, the word "hazing" is used to mean frightening wildlife for their own protection - for example, scaring waterfowl away from areas where there is an oil spill. I was translating a text on this topic, and was having trouble looking up the names of various devices used for hazing. Most of the names were pretty self-explanatory, so I was checking the most obvious translations by typing them into Google. I ended up getting a surprising number of those word list pages that are intended to redirect searchers towards porn. I wonder why? I had no idea that the word "hazing" could be a porn keyword. Dare I search Urbandictionary to find out what it means in this context?

People-watching

Seen at the bank: a lady standing at the ATM with her feet in ballet fifth position.

Seen at the supermarket: a little old man, physically frail and perhaps mentally frail, holding a single can of frozen Old South orange juice from concentrate like it was the single most important, most wonderful, thing in the world.

Seen in the square: a guy on rollerblades with a remote-control car. He'd send the car off somewhere, then skate after it.

Seen in the mall: a man holding an incredibly tiny baby. It looked like it had once been a preemie and hadn't quite grown into its age.

Seen walking down the street: a little old lady with one of those little old lady buggies, with a little fluffy white dog sitting in the buggy.

Why I choose to boycott Karla

It's not that I don't think people should be allowed to see this movie, it's that I think it's completely distasteful for anyone, anyone at all, from a director to a cinema operator, to be making money off of this story.

I want to make it perfectly clear, this is personal.

If you had one car drive from Lesley Mahaffey's house to Kristen French's house and another car drive from Kristen French's house to Leslie Mahaffey's house, they would meet up not too far from where I grew up.

I bear a strong resemblance to Kristen French. When I got my grade 8 grad photos back, the first thing that struck me was how much they look like Kristen French's grade 8 grad photos. She looks more like me than my own sister does.

I, and all my classmates, spent those years living in fear. We had no way of knowing that we wouldn't be next. We were trained to walk far enough away from the road so that people in passing cars couldn't reach out and grab us.

I decided that I would rather die than be raped. I role-played in my head, lay awake at night thinking of escape strategies, self-defence strategies, how I would trick or taunt or manipulate the rapist into pulling the trigger before he got to undoing his pants. I was 11 years old at the time.

I know that the only reason it wasn't me was because I was lucky. Just a stroke of dumb luck, that's all. The fact that they never chose to cruise my neighbourhood at a time when I was out and about.

I wouldn't want people making money off of the story of my torture, and I know that it's only because of dumb luck that I wasn't the one tortured. Therefore, I will not be seeing this movie, I will not be seeing any movie that plays in a cinema that is also showing this movie, and I full expect that all right-thinking people who lived in the area at this time to do the same.

Perhaps some random person in California doesn't understand what it was like to be there, but I sincerely hope that in 416 and 905 there's a huge revenue hole, perhaps large numbers of cinemas opting out because their audiences aren't interested.

Rational or no, those of us of a certain age and geographical origin feel like nothing more than serendipitous survivors. We don't want it banned because we deem it offensive, we want every individual to choose not to see it and every cinema to choose not to show it, out of respect for the victims, who could just as easily have been us.

I wouldn't want random people making money off of the story of my torture; Kristen French, Leslie Mahaffey, Tammy Homolka and Jane Doe all deserve the same.

A challenge

Open your mouth wide, and then breathe through your nose - and ONLY your nose.

Maybe it's just me, but I find this really hard! My brain is saying "WTF? Why should I have to breathe through those tiny little nostrils when there's this great big mouth that's open anyway?"

Simbolism

I've noticed that when my Sims are "friends", they do this big complicated jive-style secret handshake to greet each other. But once their friendship escalates to "best friends", they just greet each other with a calm, subdued acknowledgement.

I think this reflects reality. When you're just new friends with someone, you want them to like you, so you try to show them how cool you are. But once you're true friends, you can just be every aspect of yourself, skinny legs and all.

Cypress Cabernet Sauvignon

I like this one, because it's much fruitier than cab. sauvs. usually are. I don't know if that means it's a good cab. sauv. or a bad cav. sauv., but I like it. It also has a screwcap, which the label calls a "Stelvin closure", perhaps to avoid getting stuck with the "screwcap wine" reputation. Or perhaps so that when people Google for screwcap wine, they won't come up with Cypress. Well, I have just foiled that nefarious scheme!

Interrogating political candidates

Anyone who wants to be leader of a country should be asked, and have to publically answer the following question:

"How would you effectively resolve [situation*] without using any military force whatsoever?"

*[situation] being any still-relevant situation that is currently or was recently addressed by the country in question or one of its allies through the use of military force.

Regardless of whether you are a pacifist, or you believe military force is sometimes justified, or you're something of an enthusiast looking for any opportunity to war-monger (or is it monger war?), the answers that potential leaders give to that question would be very enlightening indeed.

Two public service announcements

1. We know the term Indian used to be used to refer to North American Aboriginal people, and we know that term is inaccurate and outdated. There are many words and phrases that can be used instead, depending on the context. However, the phrase "Native Indian" is not one of these. "Native Indian" implies, even more so than "Indian", a native of India. It only exacerbates the problem with the term Indian.

2. If you are loudly discussing the purchase and sale of illegal narcotics, it isn't a bad idea to switch away from English when you hear a stranger approaching. However, switching to Spanish may not grant you total privacy, because a great many people speak Spanish. Not only is it a common world language, but it is also taught in schools. Try Basque or Guarani or Xo if you want a language that passer-by are les likely to understand.

This has been a public service announcement.

You can't compare price per volume of different products!

Attention people who keep comparing the cost per litre of gasoline with the cost per litre of other consumer products:

IT IS NOT AN APT COMPARISON!

Different products are used in different quantities and for different things.

Water/coffee/alcohol/vinegar/perfume are used for completely different things than gasoline, and different quantities consitute a "serving".

Parallel comparisons: When baking, you use several cups of flour and only a pinch of baking powder. Therefore, a litre of flour will not last nearly as long as a litre of baking powder, so it doesn't make sense for them to cost the same.

I use a generous dollop of shampoo every day, but only a spritz or two of perfume on special occasions. Therefore, a litre of shampoo won't last nearly as long as a litre of perfume, so it doesn't make sense for them to cost the same.

In a typical day, I drink one glass of wine and several litres of water. Therefore, a litre of wine will last me far longer than a litre of water, so it doesn't make sense for them to cost the same.

If you must insist on comparing the cost of gasoline with the cost of other products, compare the price of how much you need to get through the typical day, not how much it costs per litre. A litre is meaningless as a basis for comparison.

Things They Should Invent: reduced rent for non-air-conditioned rental housing

There was some discussion a month or two ago about the possibility of requiring landlords to provide air conditioning in the summer (the same as they're required to provide heating in the winter), but for various reasons that was found to be a non-viable idea.

However, we still have the problem that many people, including the poorest, are living in non-air-conditioned housing in this ridiculous weather, and either aren't able to afford a window air-conditioner, or aren't able to afford the increased electricity bill.

So I propose a solution: if the landlord is unable or unwilling to provide air conditioning, they must provide a rent reduction for each day when the temperature (including humidex) exceeds a certain threshold. The tenant can take this as compensation for their inconvenience, and perhaps use the money to purchase an air conditioner themselves.

A few sample formulae for how this would work out. I'm going to use 26 as the threshold because it makes sense to me. Please note that I have no idea what landlord profit margins are like, so I don't know if the numbers themselves are plausible

The simplest formula is that the percentage rent reduction for the day is equal to the maximum temperature (including humidex) for that day. Let's assume that the monthly rent is $900, which is a bit low, but it's a nice round number to work with. That would work out to $30 rent per day. Now, today the temperature reached a high of 39 with humidex. So you'd get a 39% discount on your rent. That's a discount of $11.70, which means that for today you'd pay $18.30 rent instead of $30.

Another possible fomula would be to take into consideration both the daytime high and the nighttime low. This is because there is a huge difference between a hot day with a cool, fresh night and a hot day when the humidity does not break overnight. So suppose the percentage discount is the average of the daytime high and the nighttime low. The highest temperature today was 39. The lowest the temperature (with humidex) reached last night was 29. That makes an average of 34. So the rent would be reduced by 34%, a reduction of $10.20, for a total day's rent of $19.80. But if the overnight temperature had gone down to a nice balmy 15, there would be a rent reduction of only 27%.

These rent reductions might sound extreme, but they're using extreme temperatures. Using the threshold of 26 and weather records from The Weather Network, there would be no rent reduction whatsoever on a statistically normal day.

If utilities are included in the rent, the landlord shouldn't have to pay as much of the rent reduction, because they'll be absorbing some of the cost of operating an air conditioner, should the tenant be able to purchase one.

The Line of Beauty by Alan Hollinghurst

I felt vaguely dissatisfied with this book. I can't quite place why. I spent most of the book wondering why the protagonist never had to deal with the consequences of his actions, but then when the consequences did come about, I found myself thinking "But that's not fair!"

I think it's quite possible that I didn't fully "get" it because of the cultural divide. The setting is in the British upper classes in the 1980s, which is as foreign to me as, like, Cajuns on the bayou in 1806. I'm sure there were some elements of interpersonal relationships that the authors intended as a given but I completely missed.

However, there were two things I particularly enjoyed about this book:

1. It showed the protagonist before he knew about AIDS and after he knew about AIDS. This was interesting because I've never not known about AIDS. I knew what AIDS was before I knew what sex was. Obviously I didn't fully comprehend what AIDS was, but I knew it was some kind of stigmatized disease that men got, although public service announcements said that we shouldn't stigmatize it. I also knew it had something to do with "being gay" (although I didn't know what gay meant at the time - it was one of those indefinite schoolyard insults). I also knew at the time that "condoms" (which I didn't know what they were - I had once seen an item that my classmates identified as a condom, but it looked like a balloon to me so I figured they were mistaken) had something to do with "being gay", although I wasn't able to make all the connections, probably because I didn't know what a penis was or how it worked or what it could be used for. Anyway, what with having, for all intents and purposes, always known about AIDS, I found it really bizarre that the protagonist in this book initially didn't. After he was presented with enough information for me to determine that his lover's previous lover had AIDS, I found myself yelling at the book "What are you doing? Use a condom you fuckwit!" Then, as it later became clear, he didn't know. He had no idea that his lover's lover's illness was a deadly STD. Because he didn't know that there was such thing as a deadly STD. That was all very bizarre and surreal, but it was an important reminder that in the first few years of AIDS being spread, people didn't know! That has honestly never occurred to me before. However, the book isn't about AIDS, it's just a minor plot presence

2. Because the book is about gay relationships in the context of the British upper classes, the book sometimeshas a lovely posh party that, with different costumes and language, could be straight out of Jane Austen, then some of the characters suddenly slip into the bathroom and engage in activities that would be a bit too hardcore for an R-rated movie. This was all quite helpful in getting little old ladies on the subway to stop reading over my shoulder. Then, after they'd been duly shocked/offended/titillated, I could shift the book into a vertical position to show them that I was, in fact, reading Booker Prize-winning literature.