adopting adults; virtues and countervirtues

there's more to the adoption concept than i wrote in my other blog. i just don't like writing things there that seem kinky or weird or sexual in that blog, because i go to work the next day and see people 'leering' at me with strange looks.

the rest of the adoption concept was that i would adopt older people, perhaps adults, and that the adoption would be informal, without paperwork. this would be a non-sexual relationship resembling a child-parent relationship, and it could be with males and females. but they would agree to certain rules in order to receive the benefits of this relationship.

the benefits are that they get to stay home if they want to, and work at home, and i pay for their food and rent. in that respect, they are like dependent children. but they will have to help with either household chores or projects of mine. and those would be the people who choose how much they want to participate in the long hair community, because i want to give people the opportunity to do that. the interrogations during summertime made it clear to me that yes, this is something i want, i just wasn't admitting it, and had given up on it. but it's important to me. and other anarchists and hippies, in the past, they say they DID view the long hair as very important to them, not just trivial. it's just hard to explain WHY it's so important, when you can live without it.

part of the concept was that there would be a large number of adults in the house, instead of just the mother and father with a bunch of young kids. the adults would be in various types of non-sexual relationships with me, but they would all be dependent in some way, at least by living in the same house without paying rent, or paying a minimal rent. as adults, they would be productive workers, and relatively independent, and i could let them go if there was a problem or severe irreconcilable conflict. with young kids, you MUST keep them unless something SO TERRIBLE happens that you can't keep your own kid anymore. the relationship is more permanent with very young dependent kids. you have to be ready for that. i don't feel quite ready yet, but i can imagine adopting platonic-relationship adults.

writing in retmeishka is to an invisible audience. i could do something to get more traffic to the site, real people instead of spam-commenters. i just don't feel comfortable in my real-name blog when i have to look at my coworkers the next day and sense that 'leering' feeling from the men. i don't know which people read my blog or not, but sometimes i just feel uncomfortable.

anyway, this is similar to the polyandry concept, except that there would be females involved as well. and those females would be connected directly to me. in the polyandry concept, i imagined that there would be other females, but they might be wives of some of the men. but in this new concept, these women would connect directly to me and might or might not marry other men in the group.

the model for the relationship is 'adopting adults.' you can adopt someone informally at any age, and put them into a childlike relationship to you, with a certain amount of dependence and agreement to do things you want them to do. it would be a barter relationship, not necessarily with money. they might not even pay rent, but there would be mutually helpful things that they gain and that they give to you. they would be closer to you than just a stranger, closer to you than a mere community member.

'community members' are like neighbors. they do what they want, and they obey the community's rules, but they don't report directly to you, and you're not responsible for them.

the other thing i don't want to write in my other blog is about nudism. before the house got contaminated, i was practically a nudist. now, i can't touch anything, and i have to keep clothes on all the time.

i was thinking about the virtue of modesty. i was reading about the virtues, the virtue of humility in particular, because the voices are always flattering my ego with extreme things that are not true and not realistic. i am somewhat plain, maybe 'rugged looking.' men have found me attractive sometimes, and i DO get boyfriends, and i'm not blatantly hideous, and people don't scream and run away when they look at me. peter described me as 'pleasant to look at, and curved in the right places.' but i am not going to win any beauty contests, and my face won't appear on a fashion magazine (unless it's 'Hair To Stay' or something, though i guess that isn't a printed magazine anymore. i never saw the printed magazine, i just saw it on the web). i'm somebody about whom you say 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder.' but every time i even MENTION my plainness, the voices FREAK OUT and they can't even let me CONCEIVE for even an instant that i am plain, or average looking. instead they protest loudly if i even mention that topic, and they say unrealistic things like 'YOU ARE THE MOST BEAUTIFUL PERSON I HAVE EVER SEEN IN MY ENTIRE LIFE!!!' for some reason, they think it's very threatening that i would downplay my physical beauty and try to see myself in a realistic way, without insulting myself or calling myself ugly or saying there's anything wrong with me.

anyway, about the virtues. i read about them, and they described a virtue as 'opposing' another 'vice.' so i extended this idea, and came up with additional virtues, which SEEM to contradict or be in conflict with the other virtues, but aren't. here's an example of what i called a 'countervirtue.'

the virtue of modesty: whenever you're talking to somebody who's sexually repressed, or someone who's been humiliated, degraded, raped, sexually violated, etc, or talking in mainstream society, or doing business in an everyday, normal situation, it's better to keep your body covered and not have the person distracted by looking into your cleavage and things like that, or trying to look up your miniskirt. there is 'appropriate office attire,' for instance. serious, classic, reserved outfits that are not sexually revealing or seductive, but instead businesslike.

the virtue of openness, a countervirtue to modesty (it doesn't have to be called 'openness' - there might be a better word for it, but that's all i could think of): this goes with nudism. openness means acceptance of sexuality, acceptance of the fact that humans are animals, accepting that nudity and sex are NOT necessarily connected, but that instead, we animals were naked for millions of years before clothing was invented. and just merely being naked does not CAUSE sexual activity to happen, but that instead, people can be platonic and friendly and get used to each other's nakedness. nudism is unacceptable to strict, repressed religious societies, because they believe that it contradicts or clashes with or opposes modesty and other religious virtues. but it is a virtue of its own, and it opposes other vices. if it opposes some kind of a vice, then it's a virtue.

the virtue of openness opposes the vice of: being too repressed. sexual abuse, not being 'allowed' to have sex freely, not being allowed to choose. sex being unsafe, dangerous, risky. sex being taboo, forbidden, a crime. sex being dirty or disgusting.

i don't have time to finish this. i haven't had any time to write, haven't used my sjw much - but i did use it yesterday - and so i haven't been inspired to write. retmeishka is a lonely blog, when my audience is only an invisible one, on the days when i don't believe that martin is hacking my computer, but i believe instead that he's 'clueless and innocent.' i don't know how to interpret him and they tried to convince me he was hacking, but i'm sure they tried to convince HIM that i knew everything about HIM, too, and i don't.