Hushpuppy5-blog - Truly, Clearly

Periods? A Bloody Waste of Time 🩸

I'm entirely convinced at this point that anything that they tell us (women) is normal is actually bad for us. While pregnancy from male insemination can be avoided, periods are a different matter. I am certain that they are not meant to be painful at all, nor are we meant to bleed so heavily. If a period is (as some claim) truly the removal of toxins and other fluids, are we not going to analyze what the heck is intoxicating us to begin with?

I saw this documentary a while ago called "Red Moon: Menstruation, Culture, and the Politics of Gender" were several women were discussing the stigmatization of periods. I don't remember which part it was exactly, but they were mentioning how painful periods were an energy thing. For some women, especially those who have suffered from abuse in their past, something may energetically be going on with each monthly release. I think it even goes beyond that.

This world's version of normal seems to be in praise of degeneracy at every corner of life. Pregnancy is normal, yet many women die from it or leave with life long scars (physically and emotionally). Intercourse (which seems to skirt itself alongside pure violence) is normal, yet many women leave with disease or some form of mental disorder. Periods are normal, but many women suffer monthly from it to the point where they can become immobile for a day or two. It seems that just as man has intoxicated nature, he has intoxicated the women as well. Expertly so. Now women have convinced themselves and others that pain and suffering is normal. I found this document online discussing some doctors who observed the difference between the western women and who they called "primitive" women. The western women were described as having highly acidic bodies, whilst the other group of women had alkaline bodies.

During the study, the women who consumed more animal products were more susceptible to bleeding heavier and for a longer period during their menstrual. With the alkaline women who consumed more plant based foods, the menstruation almost ceased to exist.

Modern doctors will claim that the absence of a period is signs of a terrible condition. They'll even suggest that an eating disorder it at play. It's interesting they'll say that losing your periods is unnatural, but popping a pill full of foreign chemicals to "regulate" it is totally not cause for future concerns. Speaking of eating disorders—from a western perspective—arguably many people already have eating disorders. We eat until our bellies our stretched beyond normal, and we consume foods that are lifeless and will end up rotting in our stomachs. I do believe that an aspect of periods is normal, given their spiritual nature. In ancient times, they hinted at a connection between the cycles of the moon. This was when women could be most in tune with their bodies and souls, perhaps harnessing spirtual powers that may have been dulled any other time. Now, women are lying in bed curdling in pain during that time of the month. Not much can be done productively. Of course, not all women have this problem, but plenty do.

This is just some speculation though. For me personally, omitting meat and other animal products from my diet has changed the way I think. I'm only four months in though, and my decision to do this was spontaneous and came about due to some health concerns for mine. I have had asthma and eczema for most of my life. These are two inflammatory conditions that have left me breathless and peeling off my own skin to a gross degree. Since reducing my consumption of eggs and milk and taking out meat completely, I've been breathing better and I've had little to no rashes. As a shift to something completely plant based, I'm curious as to how it will further effect me physically alongside my future menstrual cycles as well. Again, this is just the case for myself and could effect others differently. I just know that society doesn't care for case by case conditions and wants EVERYBODY to do the exact same thing healthwise, regardless of how it effect them personally. They've been choosing death for us for centuries. Now, when some of us choose life, they want to call it dangerous pseudoscience. Spare me. Women need to get to know their own bodies on a personal level. Many modern doctors aren't healers. They're band-aid solutions. This includes female doctors, since they are getting paid too. We need to be in charge of our own health and start educating ourselves.

Periods were once considered the first curse on women. Perhaps they still are. They certainly aren't desired. This isn't to take the Christian perspective of "woman bad", but there are hidden truths within these ancient books that must be analyzed. In the case of Eve, she suffered two curses from God in Genesis 3:16:

"I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children."

And

"Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

There's no explicit mention of periods here, but pregnancy and periods go hand in hand on the pain spectrum it seems. The second quote is also intriguing. This desire for her husband is linked to pain as well as "inequality". I believe that her desire for Adam makes them far more equal than we realize. She suffers with him in his degeneracy now, although on a different level. It's also notable that her suffering is more severe and constant. Would she have this pain if she loved "God" more than Adam? Or if she loved herself more than Adam?

There are so many questions, many left unanswered. Regardless, there can be a more optimistic lens to this. Like many curses, perhaps this one can be broken.

"Why do we romanticize the dead? Why can't we be honest about them? Especially moms. They're the most romanticized of anyone.

Moms are saints, angels by merely existing. NO ONE could possibly understand what it's like to be a mom. Men will never understand. Women with no children will never understand. No one but moms know the hardship of motherhood, and we non-moms must heap nothing but praise upon moms because we lowly, pitiful non-moms are mere peasants compared to the goddesses we call mothers.

Jennette McCurdy, I'm Glad My Mom Died

This book is difficult to read, but it has so many gems like this one. Of course, there are people still saying that she shouldn't talk like this about her mother, as if the person who abused her in more ways than one is owed that level of grace in death. If her mother was still alive, she still wouldn't be free to talk about her experiences without judgement. Mothers are deified just for popping out a few kids, even if they turn out to be severely maladjusted. Jeanette has already made it clear that she doesn't intend on having kids in the near future, which many people seem to have an issue with. They think having kids means that she has healed from her trauma, which is a sinister mode of thought. Her refusing to do so already make her more sensible in my eyes compared to the women who will still have kids and wind up continuing that cycle of abuse, rather than healing from it and staying childfree.

And it's funny how mothers and fathers can come online and complain about their kids and even outright say that they hate them just for being born (TikTok is a breeding ground for these attention-seekers). However, when their kids call them out on how terrible they were as parents (or will even cut them off completely) they aren't given that same freedom to do so without the backlash of being "ungrateful".

And people are wondering why the number of parricide cases have been sky-rocketing lately...

sometimes i flippantly say “identity is a trap,” and i want to explain a little more what i mean.

identity shouldn’t be something that can be invalidated by other people not believing in it; your identity cannot require other’s participation in order to exist.

a healthy identity formation goes like this:

you live your life and the facts of your life construct your identity.

unhealthy identity formation goes like this:

you construct your identity and that dictates how you live your life.

i often get charged with “invalidating” people’s gender identities, which always gives me pause, because a healthy identity should not be able to be “invalidated” by my non-participation.

for example, being a runner is part of my “identity” because i run. if someone tells me i’m not a “real runner” or i don’t “look like a runner” or refuses to call me a runner—none of that changes the material fact that i run almost every day, i run 35-40 miles a week; i DO that. so someone else “denying” that i’m a runner changes nothing about the fact that i am a runner by virtue of the fact that i run.

let’s say i did not run, but i wore running gear around. i dressed the part. someone might mistake me for a runner, but that doesn’t suddenly translate into miles run. i could insist people refer to me AS a runner, but unless i actually RUN, it makes no difference.

gender is the same premise.

i AM female, and that’s why i’m a woman. getting called “he” or “sir” doesn’t change that, dressing in “masculine” clothing doesn’t change that, and transitioning didn’t change that either. someone can “deny” that i’m a woman but i know i am because i’m female! which is such a relief and very liberating, tbh. i don’t identify AS, i AM.

on the flip, a male person can “dress like a woman,” and “look the part,” he can even insist people refer to him as “she,” or “woman,” or even “female,” but he never will be, because he is male.

when TRAs accuse me of “invalidating” gender (identity), they’re really telling on themselves; if your identity CAN be denied and that actually affects it, it’s not real. it’s constructed. it’s a fantasy that’s been miscast as an identity. and it’s unhealthy to organize your life around an identity that isn’t rooted in reality. it’s unhealthy to organize your life around an identity.

identity —> life = not healthy

life —> identity = healthy

Virgins and heroes: The socialization of women thru literature.

In early 1970s romance novels, no sometimes meant yes and a rapist could figure as a hero. And if you are in your middle ages, this is what planted in your mind those sexual scripts of "rape fantasy'. The Hallmark Channel only makes it softer.

Forty years ago public discussion was just beginning about equality in the workplace, domestic violence, sexual harassment, reproductive rights and other issues affecting women. Romance novelists quickly joined the discussion, grappling with these same issues through the lens of love.

Heather has no understanding of her sexuality and no power of consent. She has two bad choices: First, she can either be raped or kill her sexual aggressor; later, when Brandon rapes her, she can resist or learn to love her rapist. From this unpromising beginning, romance narratives quickly shifted in their exploration of women’s sexuality and the nature of consent.

In early 1970s romance novels “no” sometimes meant “yes” and a rapist could figure as a hero. By the end of the 1970s “no” meant “no” and a rapist could no longer fill the hero slot.

Keep reading

The nature of duality

The world we inhabit is extremely complex. The universe is comprised of multiple layers and aspects that are independent but simultaneously interact with eachother. In this vast web of interconnections we have the ability to perceive the cosmic paradox of duality.

The most important thing to understand about duality is that everything and anything holds opposing truths. Duality separates truth into two aspects: relative and absolute truth. As human beings we are very limited in our understanding of the cosmos and most of the truth we perceive is in fact relative truth.

Relative truth isn't any less true than absolute truth which is why two contradictory statements can be true at once. It is simply an angle of looking at something but it does not account for all possible perspectives the way absolute truth does. An example of relative truth is that the Earth is very big (in comparison to us) but it is also very small (in comparison with the universe).

Absolute truth is eternal but this is not something that we'll reach during our transient lifetime in the physical world. That is okay because we're here to have the human experience, perceive reality from specific angles and experience duality. You've been given the choice to find your personal truth, share it, live it and this is part of your experience.

Absolute truth is beyond conceptual thinking, it holds no duality, it is all-pervasive and changeless. Everything emanates from absolute truth, the supreme cosmic truth is God Herself. God is in everything, we're a fragment of Her consciousness, an idea in the infinite mind.

"The eye by which I see God is the same as the eye by which God sees me. My eye and God's eye are one and the same-one in seeing, one in knowing, and one in loving." said Meister Eckhart. There are many degrees of existence in this Universe, a spiritually developed person is one who recognises the oneness in everything but also understands duality as she is a human.

In order to better understand this, think of a writer who is imagining a new character for her book. That character is an independent being and is not the writer but at the same time it is true that there is something of the writer in the character, for she could not exist without the writer. The writer is using her mind to create something that is in a sense separate from her but also one within her.

This is an ability of the finite mind, the infinite mind also has this capacity but greater. This is seen in the Hermetic principle of correspondence: "As above, so below; as below, so above.” Our mind is a microcosmic reflection of the macrocosmic mind but in a lesser degree.

Remember that all this is part of your human experience and you need not escape your materiality yet, you are here to learn from it. Ironically, you are separated from God only to come back to Her again. Chapter VII, The Kyballion: "the Law of Individualization--that is, the tendency to separate into Units of Force, so that finally that which left THE ALL as unindividualized energy returns to its source as countless highly developed Units of Life, having risen higher and higher in the scale by means of Physical, Mental and Spiritual Evolution".

If the human body "requires" the death/destruction of another being's peace state, that particular body of humanity is in no way fit to continue existing. In the same way, if you require another being to physically reproduce yourself, that is a sign that you are not supposed to, hence why you are in genetic lockdown in the first place.. ie: The vagina attacks sperm because they are unwelcome guests hence why semen (which encases sperm) is forced to evolve even more diabolically to survive the terrain it treads because the male's role is to serve the ego (his own physical perpetuation at the expense of what's natural), while at the same time the female body is trying to unlock its own parthenogenic potential a la Ovarian Teratomas. But it fails because they have not been shown worthy genetically to proceed to the next round. You are not supposed to chest your way out (or in) when you want something to appear. The egoic way of life is going to die out in these coming millennia which is why the underclass is going to complain about veganism because it may seem to them that there's an "agenda against meat" when meat eating itself is an agenda against spirit and wholeness, and crosses every line of basic morality by virtue of being so damn close to the next step... cannibalism. I bet enough people will get on board if someone started preaching about protein quota contained in human flesh, but I digress. This is spiritual warfare and if you claim to be unable to survive without the destruction of others then you deserve not to survive.

If you want to give someone a big lesson, love them unconditionally. You cannot do this if you do not love yourself. Unconditional love toward the other is properly expressed when you have an abundance of love energy inside of you. That energy is overflowing, the waters of your heart are full so you're able to pour into another lake. You cannot give that which you do not have. Practice unconditional love on yourself first and see how you'll naturally be inclined to spread this energy to others too.

This is a hottake. I've been thinking about this for a while. There are lesbian women that have this intense desire to get pregnant and start families. Of course, that means they'll need to use male sperm. That just feels like a dangerous game to play - especially considerng that the sperm is parasitic by nature. Also, aren't there enough children on this planet? I guess I'm stereotyping, but I never considered some lesbians would fall for the white picket fence fantasy so hard. And many people don't think to adopt because they only want children that look like them (as if that guarantees those children will grow up to become their carbon copies and behave exactly the way they do)...

I found this document called "The Asexual Manifesto" and thought it was interesting in how it addressed asexuality amongst women in some 1970s feminist groups:

The Asexual Manifesto (1972) was recently found by Caoimhe Harlock on Twitter.  It is available as a pdf.  I have transcribed it below for better accessibility.  The format mimics the original, except for the placement of the footnote on the first page. The Asexual Manifesto was also excerpted in Shere Hite’s book, Sexual Honesty (1974); I have separately transcribed the excerpt and noted what was left out.  Feel free to use this in any way.

--Siggy, 6/22/2019

I wrote an article explaining some of the context of the Manifesto. --Siggy, 8/9/2019

The Asexual Manifesto

Lisa Orlando, Asexual Caucus, NYRF *

* In September 1972, the Co-ordinating Council of New York Radical Feminists formed caucuses based on similarity of sexual orientation.  Each caucus was to explore its members' personal and political attitudes about their sexuality and communicate these views to the larger group.  Barbie Hunter Getz and I realized that we would not feel comfortable in any of the proposed caucuses (heterosexual, Lesbian, bisexual) and formed our own.  Out of this caucus came a paper of which the “Asexual Manifesto” is a revision.  That the paper’s plural form has been retained does not imply that all the views expressed in this final version necessarily reflect the views of both the original co-authors.

I. Origin and Definition.

Our experiences with sexuality have not been congruent with our feminist values.  As our consciousness became raised on this issue we began to see how sex had permeated our lives and the lives of others.  We categorized our relationships in terms of sex ----- either friends or lovers.  We engaged in a "sizing up" process, however subtle or subconscious, with each new person, accepting or rejecting her/him as a possible sexual partner even if we never intended to become sexually involved.  We arbitrarily rejected whole groups of people as unsuitable for intimate relationships because we assumed that such relationships, by definition, necessarily included sex.  Often we chose to spend time with people simply on the basis of their sexual availability (the “bar scene”).  As we became aware of this in ourselves, we became painfully aware of how we were being objectified by others.

Asexuality is an outgrowth of this consciousness.  It is a concept we have come to employ out of the wish to communicate ----- not merely through being but also through language ----- our struggle to rid ourselves of sexism in our personal lives.

In this paper we have used the terms “sex” and “sexual” to describe any activity one goal of which is genital excitation or orgasm.  Physical affection and sensuality (including kissing) are not, by this definition, sexual unless they are directed towards the goal of genital excitation.

We chose the term “asexual” to describe ourselves because both “celibate” and “anti-sexual” have connotations we wished to avoid: the first implies that one has sacrificed sexuality for some higher good, the second that sexuality is degrading or somehow inherently bad.  “Asexual”, as we use it, does not mean “without sex” but “relating sexually to no one”.  This does not, of course, exclude masturbation but implies that if one has sexual feelings they do not require another person for their expression.  Asexuality is, simply, self-contained sexuality.

II. Philosophy

Our philosophy of asexuality grew out of our personal ethics, which have been reshaped by our feminist consciousness.  To us, as to many other women, feminism means more than the fight against sexism.  It means "sisterhood" ----- a new way of relating, perhaps a new way of life.  Feminist morality, at this stage in history, can only be defined as antithetical to the oppressive values of our society (e.g., competition, objectification).  On a personal level, it is reflected in our beliefs that: we should attempt to relate to others in their totality as much as possible and not view them as objects existing for the gratification of our needs; we must not exploit others ----- that is, use them “unjustly or improperly” ----- nor allow ourselves to be exploited; we must not be dishonest with ourselves or those we respect.  In addition, we believe that we each have the responsibility for examining our behavior, determining how it has been affected by sexist conditioning, and changing it if it does not meet our standards.

As feminists we had decried the sexual exploitation of women by men without seeing that we too had used others “unjustly and improperly”.  Interpersonal sex is not an instinctive behavior pattern; it is behavior we have learned to use for the satisfaction of a need (for orgasm) which we can easily satisfy for ourselves.  We came to see this use of others as exploitative and realized that in allowing others to use us in this way we were acquiesing in our own exploitation.

In our attempt to be honest with ourselves, we tried to determine what our real needs are.  We saw that we have needs for affection, warmth, skin contact, which we had been taught to satisfy through interpersonal sex.  As we began to satisfy these needs in our "friendships," our need for and interest in sex diminished.  We also realized that we had a need for intimacy, a state we had always seen as "completed" by sex.  In retrospect, we realized that we, and others, had used sex as a means of self-deception, as a way of avoiding real closeness rather than achieving it.

We had struggled against our conditioning in many ways, especially in terms of roles, but we had avoided examining the basic conditioning which had shaped our sexuality.  It is difficult even to speculate on the nature of "ideal sexuality" (uninfluenced by sexism) but we are certain that it would not occupy as much of our lives as it does in this society.  We live in a culture of "fetish-worshippers" who regard sex with an extreme and irrational amount of attention.  Just as many of us were conditioned to direct our energy into the preparation of lavish meals, creating a fetish out of a simple need to avoid confrontation with the emptiness of our lives as women, so we were conditioned to seek sexual satisfaction in convoluted and circuitous ways.  Since our involvement with feminism, our lives have been increasingly meaningful and we no longer feel the need for fetishes.

In examining our experiences relative to our values, we have come to asexuality as a stand and a state of being concurrently.  Interpersonal sex is no longer important to us, no longer worth the distorted and often destructive role it has played in relationships.  It no longer defines our relationships or in any way constitutes our identities.  As asexual women, we do not (1) seek, initiate, or continue relationships in order to experience interpersonal sex, (2)use others for the satisfaction of our sexual needs or allow ourselves to be so used, (3) attempt to satisfy other needs (e.g. for affection, warmth, intimacy) through interpersonal sex, or (4) perceive others according to their potential, or lack of it, as sex partners.  In essence then, our asexuality reflects a rejection of interpersonal sex as long as it cannot meet our conditions: that it be both congruent with our values and totally incidental and unimportant to our relationship.

III Politics

Basic to the liberation of women is the destruction of sexism, one manifestation of which is the sexual exploitation of women by men.  Asexuality is a step towards achieving this goal at the personal level, as it eliminates one means by which men oppress us.  Through our asexuality, we have excluded sex as a goal and, essentially, even as a possibility in any relationships we may happen to have with men.

Because of the patriarchal culture which has resulted from institutionalized sexism, the exploitative behavior, standard in such a culture, has made it extremely difficult for women to realize their own independent, more humane style of relating.  Most women consequently reflect, in their relationships with each other, some of the exploitative behavior patterns characteristic of our male oppressors.  One area where the oppression of women by women may occur is, again, the sexual; this oppression too must end before we can be truly free. Through asexuality, we have rejected sex as a goal in our relationships with women, thus avoiding the sexual objectification, exploitation, and oppression of our sisters.  Here too, we reject any possibility of sex unless our conditions are met, and we thereby prevent ourselves from being sexually exploited and oppressed.

To destroy a particular culture’s basic myths is to undermine its very foundations.  Patriarchal culture, based as it is on sex differentiation, has constructed some of its strongest myths around sexuality.  We believe it is of prime importance that feminism direct itself to the exposure and destruction of the current patriarchal mythology which, through deception, reinforces our oppression.  Those myths most responsible for the distorted role sex plays in women's lives are:

Interpersonal sex is essential since the sex drive is a powerful force in human life and, if unsatisfied (through interpersonal sex), tends to produce unhappiness or possibly illness,

It is important that any sexual excitation always and/or immediately be satisfied,

Sex is essential for closeness in a relationship, no relationship being complete without it,

The ultimate closeness in a relationship occurs during sex and/or orgasm,

The needs for physical affection and sex are basically the same,

It is almost impossible satisfactorily to express affection physically without sexual excitation also occurring,

Women who have little interest in interpersonal sex, or who rarely if ever reach orgasm, are somehow inadequate.

While all these myths may not be credible to all women, some women believe some of them some of the time.

Finally, we see a conflict between, on the one hand, the time and energy necessary to our struggle as feminists, and, on the other hand, the time and energy necessary to develop and maintain relationships in which sex is a goal.  If we would use our energy efficiently, a choice seems indicated: to struggle against sexism or to struggle for satisfactory sex.  Although it may be said that to turn one’s back on a problem is not to solve it, we think the truth of this statement is relative to the importance one places on the problem.  If we saw interpersonal sex as important, asexuality would be a cop-out; since we do not, it is instead a means of withdrawing our energy from an area in which we feel it is being wasted.  

We see asexuality as an efficient "alternative life-style" for revolutionary women but we do not claim that “asexuality is revolution.”  We call ourselves “self-identified women” but we do not demand that all feminists adopt this title.  Our statement is simply this: as a result of examining the nature of our sexuality and reclaiming it from the sexist misconceptions surrounding it, we are able to form and maintain relationships in a way which both reflects our values and is effective in our liberation struggle.  For us, asexuality is a committment to defy and ultimately to destroy the baseless concepts, surrounding both sex and relationships, which support and perpetuate the patriarchy.