My Gripe With Euphoria. Part 1:

Apollo and Poseidon both tried to take Hestia's virginity, her one-in-herself intactness. Rather than succumbing to their desires, however, she swore an oath of eternal chastity. What Hestia resisted by rejecting Apollo and Poseidon is metaphorically significant, corresponding to the intellectual and emotional forces that can pull a woman away from her center.

Hestia represents the Self, an intuitively known spiritual center of a woman's personality that gives meaning to her life. This Hestian centeredness may be invalidated if she "gives in to Apollo." Apollo was God of the Sun, and Apollonian has become equated with logos, the intellectual life, the primacy of logic and reasoning. If Apollo persuades a woman to give up her Hestian virginity, she will subject her inner, intuitively felt experience to the scrutiny of scientific inquiry. What she feels but cannot express in words is thus invalidated; what she knows as an inner wise woman is thus discounted unless it is supported by hard evidence. When “male” scientific skepticism is allowed to penetrate spiritual experience and to demand "proof," the invasion invariably violates a woman's sense of intactness and meaning.

Alternately, if a Hestia woman is "carried away by Poseidon," she is being overwhelmed by the God of the Sea. Poseidon represents the danger of being flooded by oceanic feelings or by contents that well up from the unconscious. When this flood threatens her, she may dream that a huge wave is bearing down on her. In waking life, preoccupation with an emotional situation may keep her from feeling centered. If the turmoil leads to depression, Poseidon's watery influence can temporarily "put out the fire at the center of Hestia's hearth."

When threatened by either Apollo or Poseidon, a Hestia woman needs to seek her one-in-herselfness in solitude. In quiet tranquility, she can once again intuitively find her way back to center.

-Jean Shinoda Bolen, Goddesses in Everywoman

One of the weapons abusive parents use against children is disgust. They might make comments on your appearance, weight, physical characteristics in a way that makes you ashamed to exist. They might look at you as if you’re the most repulsive thing they’ve ever seen. They might criticize your scent, your clothes, your hair, your state of dissaray, as if it’s something you deserve to be shamed for. They might bestow disgust over your actions, or expressions of pain. It’s possible for them to act the most repulsed and grossed out by you when you’re in pain, shaking, or crying. As if you’re so awful in every single way, that no human being should ever be around you or touch you except to hurt you.

But think about it, have you ever seen a kid that was disgusting to look at or be close to? They’re kids, they’re smaller, undeveloped, inexperienced, in a body that is not even fully grown to be criticized. Only human impulse is to protect and keep safe.

So were they really disgusted? If they still want you to obey them and to give them physical affection, unlikely. They know you’re just a child and there’s nothing wrong with you. The reasons for their ‘disgust’ run deeper.

Possibly they need to convince you that your body is disgusting so you’d feel too ashamed of it and cover it up. And hide the injuries they caused to it. Possibly they need an excuse to hurt or violate a child’s body; calling it disgusting is a very pathetic and transparent victim blaming technique. It’s also possible they want to control your body via shame – disgust hurts. Seeing others look at you like you’re the plague, when you’re just a child, hurts! They want you to ask 'what can I do so you’d stop hurting me? What do I need to do to stop being disgusting to you? So you wouldn’t hate me anymore?’ and this is what they use as leverage for control. Your pain and fear of being dehumanized.

And of course, they don’t want to see expressions of pain because it’s a consequence of their actions. They want to hurt a child but never experience themselves as the perpetrator who is now guilty for a child’s vocal suffering. And they want to neglect their responsibility to comfort and calm you. To reassure you and bring you back to feeling safe. So in the midst of causing pain to their kid, being responsible for suffering, being called to de-escalate the situation and comfort their pained child, what do they do? Pretend they’re busy being disgusted. Pretend their 'disgust’ is priority over everything they’ve done to you. Use disgust to hurt you one more time. Because you being hurt twice is better than them acknowledging they hurt you.

This type of abuse can alienate you from your body. Once it’s cemented in your mind that your body, you appearance, or your pain is the actual reason you’re being so despised, you will start to despise it too. You can become disgusted with your own body, or your actions and emotions, even your pain. But none of that is right. None of that was ever the fault of your body.

You were never disgusting. Nothing about your body, or your pain, was ever wrong or repulsive or worth doing damage to you. You were always okay just as you are. Your body did nothing wrong. Your pain was only ever human. We’re all the same, our bodies are human and warm and nothing about them is worth violating or hurting. We all long for affection and acceptance just the same. Nobody is disgusting, especially not children. There was never a reason to look at you that way, or to hurt you for the projected image of disgust that was never a part of who you are. You’re meant to be free of that shame. You’re okay as you are.

Trans projection

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.

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.

I am getting so sick and tired of women being told to off themselves because we're stating facts. Men are allowed to exclude women in every scenario, even when we should rightfully play a role. To some of these TRA's however, women just wanting that space to themselves is the equivalence of g**ocide and we should be k*lled and r**ped accordingly. These sentiments are being shared by both men AND women. I've even seen TIW getting dogpiled for speaking out, because they are still women in a very patriarchal society. How some women have fallen into this sh*t pile is beyond me at this point. I have seen some peak, while others dig themselves in further just for the sake of acceptance. At this point, I will have to remove anyone who supports them from my friendship circle. I can't mentally handle being around people who don't believe that my biological sex had impacted my life, or that my biological sex can be some man's outfit.

Fortune

Shanghai residents scream out from high-rise apartments as lockdown stretches into second week

Other viral videos coming out of the city show pets being beaten to death, parents being separated from their children, and a struggle for f

As if these past few years couldn't get more disturbing...

While they are shoving celebrity slaps and reality tv in our face, across the globe, people are screaming for a shred of freedom, and having their children snatched away from them. Is this really about "safety" at this point? What is happening to them could happen to the rest of us if we remain silent. They will create a problem, then snatch away every shred of freedom we could possibly own just to "fix" that problem. People will eventually have to create their own solutions. We know what we want. It is up to us to take it. There is strength in numbers, but a few individuals in their little high chairs have convinced us that we are lesser than. How have they done that for so long? It will come to a point where we can no longer rely on figures that would have us b*mbed in a second if it meant they could spit right back at their opponent.

These people don't want to lead. They want to destroy. The world is their playground, after all.

Stylist

The shocking trailer for HBO’s new docuseries lifts the lid on the beauty industry’s dirty secrets

Want to know what really goes into your beauty products?

“In one scene, a scientist reports finding traces of asbestos in samples of products, while other experts report a catalogue of shocking issues on the rise such as changes in brain development, birth defects, ovarian failure and infant mortality.

We also see Palmer meet with individuals who have exhibited severe reactions to certain beauty products and hear their emotional accounts of devastating medical issues such as hair loss, speech problems and infertility. The scale of the issue, one commentator gravely declares, is an “overlooked epidemic”.”

My gripe with Euphoria. Part 3:

The Mixed Melodies of Maddy

For some, Maddy's character may be hit or miss, for a multitude of reasons. My main reason was that I wasn't sure how to feel, at least on a larger scale.

Maddy Perez, played by Alexa Demie

Like some of the other female leads, we are meant to ogle her as a very sexual and "empowered" teenager. Her archetype is presented as the cheerleader to Nate's jock. Both are rude, tend to achieve what they want, and have their horrendously unstable relationship to wave around to others. There is something that Maddy lacks, however, and that is Nate's disregard for others. Maddy is shown to empathize, especially with her friends. I would almost say that she cares for them more than she does Nate, but that idea could be challenged. She is shown to be confident and straightforward, which are good qualities, until the writer's decide otherwise. The viewer is left wondering how much of these confidence is a facade after all, especially when coupled with Nate. It is interesting to see how Nate's demon dick impacts the girls he's with. When Maddy was with Nate, she had seemed to have a streak of violence and hostility with others. When this relationship broke off, it was as if she mellowed, taking on a laid-back persona similar to Lexi's. There is still much to critique about her character, both pre and post mellow. It helps to have some background for Maddy Perez. At a young age, she was subjected to the controversial industry that is pageantry. Her confidence and skill helped in her success, which was quickly tarnished when her mother removed her from this arena due to the prevalence of pedophiles. I feel like this was the opportunity to introduce something big for the show, possibly a critique on the sexualization of girls as young as 3 years old.....but no. That misshap was brushed aside in a manner of "it happens" as Maddy rushes toward other avenues. She comes to the conclusion that she would rather do "nothing", then switches to possibly doing something in order to attain the high value of the women who's nails her mother painted. This is all to avoid the trappings of being both impoverished and in a strained relationship like her parents.

When she meets Nate Jacobs, this is where more of her character gets called into question. We see her purposefully portray herself as the perfect girl to Nate Jacobs, who has an odd list of demands (likes girls hairless, slender, small noses, chokers, and other shallow things) that supposedly Maddy is able to meet. She even lies about having never had sex just to increase her appeal. She will then use this newfound sexual status with Nate to convince him into treating her like the rich women she aspired to be, having him buy her lavish presents. This rich woman status feels more like pr*stitution, to put it flatly. The show presents her using her body for currency as empowering and confident. She even analyzes p*rn so that she can carry on their "techniques". It is stated offhandedly, that she doesn’t derive pleasure from doing so. Her body is no longer hers. It is Nate's, which he feels free to use at his own discretion.

All this, and Maddy admits that she is afraid of him. She has reason to be, given his violent streak not only from the 1st season where he chokes her, but also in the 2nd where threatens her life, then claims it was all a joke. In spite of this, she says that she is still attracted to him, although it makes her "sick to her stomach". It's clear why, and I think teen dating violence is often overlooked in the media, or isn't given the nuance it deserves. The girl’s abusers are not framed as such. Instead, these are boys with a troubled past who need rehabilitation through her love and her love alone. Never mind the stalking, the yelling, or the inappropriate touching. He says he "loves her". Unfortunately, these girls feel like they love them back. It's saddening to see Maddy's usually confident nature fizzle under the gaze of Nate. She is willing to hide her bruises for him, wrongly accuse someone for him, and even beat her friend over him. I do not want to claim that her character isn't strong because she still loves her abuser. A lot of women unfortunately fall in love with those that hurt them. Perhaps it is the need to give back, even when a lot has already been snatched away from her. Nevertheless, the show sees Maddy as empowering because of this toxic love. She gets right back with Nate despite her weariness of him, and even some lingering hatred. Still, this hatred is not as aimed toward him as I would have liked.

Despite ending things in season 1, we jump to season 2 with Maddy making the claim that she would like to get back together with Nate, and the two soon resume this rugged relationship. This was with Maddy's knowledge of Nate's secret tapes, mind you. Tapes exhibiting graphic material of Nate's father and other men, mind you. But they get back together, with Nate's undiclosed relationship with Cassie almost floating in the background ready to burst in the season's finale. It soon does, however, and Nate and Cassie's lies are both exposed. Nate has lied and physically assaulted Maddy, but Maddy's aggression is turned to the lesser crimes of her former friend. Sympathy isn't a requirement for these characters, but I think the direction taken in having Maddy beat her friend at this revelation is one that I find typical. Regardless of his crimes, Nate is allowed to retain his humanity in not getting humiliated. Lexi's parody of him and his fellow jocks did not single Nate out the way the portrayal of Cassie did. Cassie's misguided attempt at finding attention winds up giving her a kick so far down that I hardly see her getting back up in one piece. Maddy hits Cassie with her shoes, leaving her bleeding and forced to stand her crumbling ground against a girl not much different from her.

Obviously, Nate is stronger and far more aggressive than Cassie could ever be, but why would Maddy result to violence? Is it because it is easier to beat down on another girl than to directly confront the boy who caused you the most harm? I do not mean to excuse Cassie's actions, as they were harmful to do to a friend. Also, I can't suggest that Maddy would have gone behind Cassie's back the way she did to her, but the result of this conflict landed in a direction that was telling, to say the least. Nate gets to eject his father from his life and resume in the next steps toward his "redemption". Meanwhile, Maddy and Cassie while likely not recover from this conflict, or they will find a difficult way of doing so. These girls that the show loved to deem powerful and strong in their sexualities were ultimately thwarted by exactly that: their sexuality. They did not learn anything outside of not being able to trust eachother. The thought of looking collectively at how their view of themselves, how they have been used, and how they can rise from this does not occur in the narrative's conclusion. What lies in wait is what remains dormant in most stories. The male leaves the women to their squabble as he comes on top and better than ever. The women, in their frustration and miguidance, are confused into hating eachother.

"The computer's processes have unwittingly advanced the cause of women and images, even though these aspects of computer operation have nothing to do with the computer's content, which is the manipulation of information. The world of cyberspace is a computer-generated extension of the human mind into another dimension. The computer has carried human communication across a threshold as significant as writing, and cyberspaces's reliance on electromagnetism and photographic reproduction will only lead to further adjustments in consciousness that favor a feminine worldview. Irrespective of content, the processes used to maneuver in cyberspace are essentially right hemispheric. The World Wide Web and the Internet are both metaphors redolent of feminine connotations."

-The Alphabet Versus the Goddess by Leonard Shlain

A pretty interesting read. It analyzes the advancement in literacy throughout time and some of its pros and cons. It also brings up how we have become predominantly left brained due to the (often forced) use of our right hands, and how this has promoted linear thinking. It may not be a common practice anymore, but I've heard stories of educators hitting left-handed kids with rulers until they learned to write with their right hand. It's a strange thing to enforce, and it really makes one think...

The advancement in technology has a dark side, but the author suggests that some good will emerge in a new "Golden Age" where both right and left brain thinking reach some sort of equilibrium with the use of the internet. This is also interesting since I've been seeing parents, educators, and whoever else talking about the decline in reading amongst children. I'm starting to wonder if there will be a larger shift from text and back to image. Picture books/graphic novels seem to be grasping the attention of adults and children alike more and more throughout the years (if they weren't already). This is an observation of the English language, of course, since there are places that utilize symbols and characters in their writing.