Josephine Baker (June 3, 1906 - April 12, 1975)

“Some people are offended by raw natural beauty–by a woman being grounded in her body and undulating around life feeling beautiful without much effort or fuss. Since Ancient times, women have danced as a sign of belonging to Earth and made the world a more beautiful place for us all. Our ancestors were the ones who cultivated the superpower of natural beauty in the sacred feminine and it was used to defeat negative energy. Therefore do not secretly hate the lighthearted, the innocent, the erotic, or the playful. Like a wildflower, admire and gaze upon, but don’t ruin things for everyone by plucking and pulling it out of the ground. The organs of humankind benefit from seeing more natural beauty emanate.”

—

India Ame’ye Author (via eatmangoesnekkid) 

Opening to “Cultivating Natural Beauty” Chapter (Unedited)

It was Abrahamic religion who taught us to be suspicious of the natural beauty of the sacred feminine ( (a deeply necessary energetic frequency that is part of earth and part of us all) , to fear it to bring temptation to “holy men.” This kind of woman who walked relaxed with her sex all the way out in front of her was ridiculed and punished by other patriarchal-infested women who felt threatened by the power of her beauty and unapologetically attractive, sensuous nature. She was akin to the devil and this kind of ignorance still lives in our subconscious, especially in the cells of women, and inhibits us from truly desiring to cultivate our natural beauty because we do not want to be hurt.

Cold climates lacked warm sun which meant that they were also devoid of sensuous and primal erotic power. They were the same places and spaces where the lack and scarcity principles around beauty and sex were born. In cold systems, cultivating natural beauty was never priority–these people were just trying to survive brutal weather, so of course, they didn’t respect natural beauty nor did they have the ease, resources, vitality, or desire to cultivate it.  By the way, the sun is the greatest resource there is, even greater than fiat currency because it raises one’s magnetism for multidimensional creativity. Abrahamic religion saw beauty as unnecessary, frivilous, and even dangerous, but it was the ancestors of darker warmer people, whether African, Asian, etc. who took the Oracle of beauty very seriously by caring deeply for themselves (their cells) and  adorning themselves accordingly.

When you take time to cultivate your natural beauty, you are arriving back home to your most potent and truthful essence and getting beyond the disembodiment traumas of our collective existence. When we begin to take 100 percent responsibility for our bodies, it bleeds over into feeling empowered enough to take 100 percent responsibility for our nutrition and wellness. This doesn’t mean that uou can’t wear designer labels, lipstick or whatever. You can, of course. But the aim is for it to become a pattern for you to be connected to your natural body that you begin emanate more naturally.

Let’s take the lips for example. To create a value system where it becomes habit to nurture your lips underneath your lipstick is incredible potency not just for your face but for your health. I mean, to truly love on and care for lips and not just cover them up with chemicals while scrolling on the internet, but desiring to take time to build a relationship with them, discover natural ways you can make them healthier and feel more luxurious to your own eye, so that your loving most truthful essence can proceed you where ever you land in the world. Building a relationship with every area of your body favorably impacts every area of your life. It’s all connected.

(via eatmangoesnekkid)

What to do when you don’t feel or look beautiful? Every where around me is beautiful women and some days I look at myself and feel I don’t measure up :/

Cultivate yourself in ways that make the way you look the least interesting thing about you. Read and learn, develop hobbies, pour yourself into friendships and craft and experience. The more varied and creative and entertaining your life becomes, the less and less it matters the shapes your flesh and bone make.

Who cares if your forehead has a line or two when you fill your days exploring the landscape around you? Who cares if your stomach pooches when you've read a hundred fantasy novels that take you far away? Does the sharpness of your jaw matter when you're laughing so hard with women you love that your gut feels like it's going to split? Does your calf firmness mean anything to the vibrancy of your vegetable garden?

Then, when you don't feel beautiful, think of all the things about you that are. Your knowledge, your kindness, your place in your community.

On your deathbed, will you wish you'd spent more time on your appearance, or more time pursuing that which you love?

My gripe with this perceived "God" stated eloquently.

I always thought about how the goddesses and gods of greek myths did not shy away from their almost human nature, despite being divine. There wasn't any justification in their actions. There was only influences like love, defeat, death, etc. These stories even showed these gods being unjust to the people below them, and I don't feel like I'm being told that they are right. Also, notice how the stories of every other culture are considered "myths", but the more religious doctrines that center a male god are considered factual? How would they know when these words have been altered and misinterpreted purposefully for centuries?

Although misogyny necessarily plays its part into the whole JKR debacle, I think the 'vitriol' as you said is mostly caused by the fact that a large portion of the haters grew up with the Harry Potter books whilst they haven't, for example, ever seen a Polanski film in their life. And JKR in a way could be a sort of parental figure to them. You know, as ~problematic~ as Freud may be, he was onto something when he spoke of one's need to symbolically kill the father; and the same people who practically worshipped the HP novels growing up had already begun dismissing them as child's play when the Rowling vs. Transactivists affair started. To quote another writer here, the issue crystallised at that point.

@helshades

It's so funny that you're bringing that up because I had this exact conversation with my man around a week ago. As I said in the tags of the post that prompted those couple of rants of mine, he's currently reading them for the first time at the rip old age of 35. A result of him giving Philosopher Stone to his pupils this year (HP so bad, primary schools use them to get kids to read, apparently) and making a point of doing everything he asks of them and that include learning all the poetry by heart, and therefore reading all the books as well. After finishing PS, he asked for the rest since he was surprised at how much funnier it was than the movie.

Anyway, I don't exactly remember how we ended up talking about JKR and the discourse currently surrounding her, but he made the exact same point as you, he mentioned how interesting it was that Freud might actually have had some interesting ideas hidden in his work somewhere in there, and that some people do need to "kill the mother / father" in order to grow up and leave childhood behind. I pointed out to him that it was rather obvious and blatantly observable all around us, but that, as per usual, people took that point way too literally, imagining that it meant killing your actual mother/father and marrying the other one so to speak; when a father or mother figure doesnt even have to be someone close to you nor someone you know at all - just a person or even a concept that shaped you enough when you were younger, that you are now feeling the need to "rebel" against in order to mature.

Which really goes back full circle to the point I constantly make when it comes to HP and how people are unable to read (just because you can decipher doesn't mean you can read, I will stand by that, always), and how really, most discourses and analysis surrounding it are people fancying themselves smart by what they believe is "deconstructing" something they loved in childhood, when in reality it's 8 grade level analysis (if I'm generous) and honestly just look like they're going through their teenage phase of explaining to mum why she actually sucks.

Still though, I'll keep believing that if Joanne Rowling had been Jonathan Rowling, there wouldn't be quite the same level of vitriol directed at her and that her being a woman plays a role in how confortable and justified people feel in robbing her of her achievement and devaluing her work.

indy100

Woman shares theory that we never really die and it’s freaking people out

People on TikTok are freaking out after one woman suggested that we might not ever truly pass on - and that the world could have ended many

I've heard of this Quantum immortality theory before. There's this idea that we have been experiencing multiple apolocalyptic events for many years and essentially restaring humanity with each wipe out. I agree with this lady. I don't think we every truly die. Rather our consciousness could live on in an alternate reality.

It's especially odd when you consider other phenomenon like the Mandela Effect. How do some people end up believing they remember events that others believe never happened? Perhaps this is a case of some people paying more attention than others? Suddenly, those theories about the world ending on certain dates don't seem so crazy. People have theorized the world's end for centuries. More recently, people thought the world would end in 2000 (where we would experience a digital apocalypse), then in 2012 (where we would suffer cataclysmic disasters)... maybe something did come to an end in those years, but it wasn't the physical change we expected? People spit on "conspiracies", but I think it's important that at least some people are asking questions about our existence.

The reason the world is the way it is is because of heterosexual men and women.

Men whine about misandry (or women) and women whine about misogyny (or men) yet they still seek out heterosexual relationships. They can try to justify it all they want but it won't change the discomfort of having extreme cognitive dissonance.

Man hates woman and woman hates man , he wants to devour her because he's incomplete and she helps him in that quest , they're both just as corrupt. Do not feel bad for the heterosexuals because they have brought this on themselves. The best you can do is be aware and distance yourself, human society currently operates on the heterosexual paradox of loving who you hate and vice versa.

My gripe with Euphoria.

Cultists Presenting Our Choice of Embracing Womanhood As Acceptance of Oppression

Their idea of "gender" is still binary and ignores women's complexities. ♀️

I've made it known that I've watched Euphoria in full. Both seasons were a mixed bag of unnecessary plots, weird lines, faux feminism, and depressing messages. I decided I would not continue watchin aftee season 2 as I felt ill with myself. The show tries so hard to be deep, but refuses to actual rely on more than its award winning actors. The underage sex was also a major issue. I found myself skipping any scene presenting these acts, but I knew that was not enough. With or without the sex, this show continues to exploit its female characters while shedding some humanity on its male ones. One could argue that some female characters did receive humanity. That list consists of Rue, Lexi, and Jules. Immediately, this list has a problem. Starting with Lexi, she is barely afforded screen time. Her development is about as rushed and undercooked as a fast food meal. She was only afforded more screen time when it came time for a male character, Fezco, to find romance as well as push the plot. Both of these acts ignored vital aspects of her character. As for Jules, he is male. He is afforded the same humanity as his other male peers because they have that in common. Jules is, of course, a part of the hyper-feminine and hyper-sexual crowd, but on him, these qualities are presented as quirky and cute. His female counterparts are still seen as shallow eye candy at the threat of being disposed of and mocked when they can't straighten up by themselves.

And then there's Rue....

She is a special case, being the lead for the show and ultimately earning more nuance accordingly. She is contrasted from the hyper-feminine, presenting as "tom-boyish". I feel I should note that these are inherently loose terms to use. No one is feminine or masculine as both of these ideas are constructed, mostly to place femaleness as submissive, unstable, and something to dominate, while men retain the supposedly masculine qualities of productivity, strength, and power. We are all a blend of unique and fanciful qualities that do not need a name. Anyhow, Rue is reserved to being the gender neutral girl of the show. We don't see her in a skirt or high heels, and make-up is the last thing on her mind. This shouldn't present her as superior to the other girls on the show, and one could state that it doesn't. We see the other female characters gain recognition and what we could loosely call "life experience" from their pretty auras and ability to social network. We don't see Rue reach out to anyone. Her place seems more firm beside her sister and mother, who love her and fear the path she has taken. Only Jules becomes a pivotal outside figure in her life. This other figure becomes a strong point of interest, so strong it leaves her vulnerable. On the other hand, Rue is occasionally shown conversing with the other girls, but the vibe is different. Even with the girls amongst eachother, their tolerance of eachother feels narrow. Despite a mostly female cast, the show does not attempt to show female solidarity in a way that feels consistent. They are shown being friends one moment, then disregarding eachother the next. Maddy is quick to fight other girls, Cassie carelessly betrays Maddy's trust, and Kat has been written so hollow at this point that she'll swing wherever the plot calls her to. Rue is a non-factor in their group as her plot simply does not mesh with theirs. She is essentially, and I hate to say it...

Not like the other girls.

If we start to question why in this misogynistic dumpsterfire, we will start to see. It is not a matter how she was written, but rather who it she was written for.

In my search for meaning behind certain characters and motivations, it was inevitable that I would come across certain articles about behind the scenes drama. Anyone familiar with Hollywood and the media knows that "drama" usually happens when an actress states her disconfort in hiw she's being handled. This is far from new. So, for this post, I am mostly addressing the words and actions of Zendaya Coleman, the executive producer of the show "Euphoria" and the actress who plays Rue Bennett. I am addressing to lead up to my conclusion on why her character has been identified in the way that she was. Evidently, Zendaya was heard in an interview insisting that Rue was a non-binary lesbian.

Non-binary. Lesbian. I have already spotted two issues. For the sake of time, I'll go ahead and explain why she can't be a lesbian, at least in practice. Of course, the show does not allow the viewer to linger affectively on her sexuality, so I am making huge guesses here.

She is shown to have had past sexual encounters with males and is currently in a relationship with one (even if he presents as female). It is clear that she exhibits distaste with those last experiences, although she tries to sound flippant. Obviously, I can't speak for lesbians on how they're sexuality works, but Rue's current (specifically the early stages of season two, as they seperate later) relationship status deems her, speaking simplistically, attracted to the opposite sex. Then again, it is hard to see her sexuality as being stable to begin with due to her addiction and mental disorders. She could fall victim to idolizing anyone that fits a current need. She could have a low sex drive as well, but that may also be the addiction messing with her libido. She is shown getting physical with Jules in season 2. However, these instances never involve intercourse, and she is shown to indeed lack the ability to enjoy any sexual act due to her harsh relapse. In a sense, we don't know what's up with her.

Long story short, Rue is not a lesbian in any meaningful sense of the term. Zendaya, that is strike one. ❌

Onto this non-binary business, I would like to ask if any of the male characters on this show are said to be binary. We could point to male characters that feel gender non-conforming, like Ethan, or characters that suffer to uphold their "masculinity", like Nate and Cal. Although, we are not told they are non-binary. Non-binary is reserved for girls, something to add an edge to them when they feel all hope is lost. It appears to girls as a form of escape, even as they dice their perfectly healthy bodies and are told to ignore the pain. Where is Rue's pain? She is still referred to as a she and doesn't seem to give a whoomp about it. So why would Zendaya claim she was a non-binary character when she is merely a girl in neutral attire? Does being non-binary suddenly afford her more empathy than the other girls? Does it help them mute any questions about Rue's sexuality? Why is it that her wardrobe depicts her as anything but female?

Well, it's because Rue wasn't meant to be a biracial female.

To explain further, I feel that I must state the obvious. Sam Levinson is white and male. Rue's story is borrowed from bits and pieces of HIS life and HIS struggles. This is not the viewpoint of a biracial girl struggling with addiction. This is a white man struggling with addiction, thus her presence as non-white and female in a largely white and male point of view is almost contradictory. Race is hardly if at all touched upon in this show, and that's not even addressing the lack of non-white leads to begin with. I don't mean to group Maddy and Kat, as they are presented as having latina origins, but those aspects of their identity are hardly given any light. I could almost say that Maddy presents as yet another "spicy latina" in its neverending and damaging occurence. Kat's ethnicity is not even touched upon enough to give it meaning. As always, there is not an asian character in sight. The black characters are presented fleetingly or as throw aways. Mckay left the story in the speed it took to say his name, and this was after his assault. No resolution. Lexi receives help for her play from a black girl who gets screen time so minimal that I don't remember her as anything but "Squeak". She simply exists. When we observe Rue's biracial identity within the story, it is never given prudence. Obviously, Sam would not be so knowledgeable of this, but where was Zendaya's input? So worried about her clothes that you forgot her skin color made an impact, it seems. Ali, her sponsor, giving a snippet of dialogue does little to justify the lack exploring identity outside of false beliefs. You can not automaticy suffer oppression by switching your pronouns. Rue somehow being a they/them, despite retaining her she-ness, proves the shallowness of the writing room. Somehow, she is not allowed to identify as a girl because that would be too hard. She cannot identify as a girl because girls can not somehow be nuanced, growing and changing in spite of the male gaze leering over them, telling them that their complexity as a female is impossible.

Somehow, she is less than female because she refuses to place effort into "femininity" in the same way as her female peers and the trans-identified male standing beside her. Jules' character is the definition of breaking gender norms as he is a man dressed in traditionallly female clothing. Why is he not just non-binary?

Rue is not less than female, and nor are those other girls despite the narrative presenting Jules' experiences as congruent to theirs. Despite their differences, they are all females with a difference in style. Non-binary is code for male. Just admit it, because somehow the world has made man the default when they did not create life. Women were here first, way before femininity and masculinity. We are both strong and gentle. We are life and death. We are complex. We are 🌿NATURE🌿. Assessing femaleness as a costume is assuming that lack thereof makes a woman less than a woman. It also adds to my point that only men are allowed story progression that does not heavily involve their sexuality. Their romance is an afterthought, a side goal in their stories. They don't have to conquer their virginity because they're not expected to be pure and nice. For women, romance and perfection is shown as the only thing we strive for. Rue is not perfect, and she certainly isn't that romantic. What would you do if people were naked? Would your gender theories work then?

That's strike two. ❌

My last qualm followed shortly after discovering her first comment. Maybe it pains me to see a woman disregard her existence for a man's unsound beliefs. It hurts even worse when assessing her words in the following post.

All women. Did Hunter tell you to say that?

I've already seen how TRA's and trans-identified males feel about black women, and they make it so blatant. Black woman are adult human females. We have female anatomy. When did we become other kinds of women simply for the color of our skin? We have been dehumanized and mocked enough! Stop lumping us with deluded autogynephiles who see our oppression as a privilege. As a woman of color, it is terrible to see her ignore this basic fact just for the sake of brownie points from a cult.

Strike three! You're out. ❌❌❌

Are you “4b” if you still care about what somebody who sucks dick says? You still value what heterosexuals and bisexuals say, for what?

One day these movements are going to realize the average XY and XX is the same. Stop looking at the physical. You become the people you’re around the most and that only accelerates when you’re swapping juices with them. Most women have dick on the brain; when I say they’re mentally ill, I mean it in the truest sense.

every trait you have is a choice. When somebody speaks and acts, observe and takes notes. If you wish to engage in a reactionary manner, that is also a choice. When you understand what you’re looking at, nothing is surprising or hurtful anymore.

In a way these same sex attracted XXs need a wake up call, so I hope heterosexuals keep being their hateful selves cause y’all think you can reform her like they try to reform the XY.

That's another thing I've noticed about feminism. There's a heavy focus on mother's needs and wants because they're the "creators" of every nation/country. Most of those mothers aren't even feminist (whatever that means anymore) and are still attached to XY partners. There's hardly ever been a focus on young women and girls, single women, child free women, spinsters, etc. Just women and girls who have opted out of or are not entirely a part of the world's machine.

Most mother-worshipping communities seem to only value the woman's presence as an incubator. Young girls are therefore dismissed from all praise and consideration until they reach their menstrual cycles. Only then is society hell-bent on uplifting them as baby makers in the making, not as individuals with the potential for actual empowerment. Young girls can't foresee a future without an XY because modern feminism has always been teaching them how to complain about circumstances that were avoidable for the most part. Their mothers have used feminism to complain about their own mistakes - heck, most of those young girls were their "mistakes" - then project those mistakes onto their daughters, telling them they won't do any better. That's practically the generational "curses" taking place. They're birthed with their mothers wanting them to suffer too (if they weren't wishing for a son the whole time, that is).

what made you move away from feminism, if you don't mind me asking?

My personal desire to do so. I'm not going to blame the movement. The more time you spend around women, the more you realize how male-centric their aspirations are. Opting out of reproduction and sexual gratification is oppression to them. Feminism is about making women's lives with men more palatable. I believe that attraction to men is oppressive, let alone acting out on it. My life started improving in earnest once I completely distanced myself from men and the women who made me doubt my judgement, cue feminist circles. Women are either unaware of what men are - read this book - , or thoroughly unintelligent because emotional fulfillment can absolutely be substituted. Women's pursuit of male affection is that of potential debasement and endurance. I say, why endure at all? If you cannot comprehend this question, we are unlikely to understand each other.