I've Heard Of This Quantum Immortality Theory Before. There's This Idea That We Have Been Experiencing

At the bare minimum, becoming a first-class parent requires years of studying human development, having real-world experience/knowledge of the circumstances you're birthing your child into, transformation of Self and the ability to consistently maintain the frequency of Love.

Since this is not the case for most parents, it is completely understandable why the world is what it is today and why parents feel as if they are devalued in their "contributions"... their contributions simply are not valuable to the world.

Ngl I feel like the only reason why birthing a newborn hurts so much is because we are not creating newborns through parthenogenesis, the baby is an invasive host in the mother's body sucking up all her nutrients, I mean why the hell would the immune system try to kill sperm during sex?

Or why do 1/4 in early stage pregnancies spontaneously end in miscarriages and most of them are male? That's because that baby isn't her, the mother host thinks it's something else, and the mother host can't recognize but this is just my theory tho lol

But I mean, there are also other factors like the way women give birth laying on their backs making it harder and longer to push the baby out because of gravity, Have you ever tried taking a shit lying on your back? That's literally the same thing when it comes to birthing a child lol

A lot of famous women have never studied feminism in any sort of academic environment + largely get their “feminism” from social media. No theory, no critical analysis, just liberal feminism + Instagram quotes.

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 wonder if cis people ever step back and think about just how much trans people have to spend just to live a happier life. I wonder if they realize just how many trans people live poor/live in poverty because they have to juggle between everyday expenses and the expense that being trans is. And that's the expense left if your insurance is "kind" enough to even try covering your healthcare if you need medical care in regards to being trans.

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.

Currently poking around radfem blogs after a trans woman on Tiktok said it was transphobic to not have sex with a post-op trans women because “their surgery makes their anatomy exactly the same as a real vagina” and so far I’m actually agreeing with what I’m reading on the radfem side of tumblr. I do have one question, though: how do radfems feel about representation of black women in media? From what I’ve seen, radfems are critical of gender roles and stereotypes, which I understand, but 1/2

as I answer this, keep in mind that I am a white woman, so my word should be taken with a grain of salt!

being inclusive of all women is vital to radical feminism, especially being inclusive of WOC. I know black women are often stereotypes as being “manly” or “aggressive”, but you and I both know that’s not true. I think it’s important to remember that masculinity for women is often just.. existing in our natural bodies. a black woman who doesn’t shave, doesn’t wear makeup, or doesn’t modify herself for others isn’t “masculine,” she’s just existing in her natural form.

the problem with how we address stereotypes is that we insist on simply defying them as opposed to abolishing them entirely. instead of saying “black women can be feminine too!”, we should say “stereotyping someone based on their race or sex is bigoted”. by defying most stereotypes, we only create new ones.

I hope this helps, any the radfems feel free to add on! (esp black radfems)

Andrea Dworkin complete works

PDF format

MOBI (kindle) format

My gripe with Euphoria. Part 2:

The Lifestyle of Lexi

I may do some of these characters separately as opposed to in pairs. I may pair character who share similar plot elements or affect each other's storylines in a major way. In some cases, I might even give them a seperate page for further analysis if necessary. While Lexi connects to both Cassie and Rue's characters, I feel like specifically addressing how she was written.

Unfortunately, I might show my favoritism here because Lexi is one of the more humanely drawn character that I found myself relating to. She is the younger sister of Cassie and is comparitively more introverted. She has a contrasting choice of attire as well, dressing more conservatively in a prim, bookish style that.

Lexi Howard, played by Maude Apatow

Character outfits notably play a large role in this show, specifically in its eye-catching presentation as well as a reflection of the characters. Maddy, Kat, Cassie, and even Jules are shown to be more chic in their style and very willing to show some skin. These characters are presented as the hyper-feminine and hyper-sexua) characters of the show. They've been presented naked and sometimes afraid when facing certain sexual encounters. Lexi is one of the few characters who gets to keep her top on and not have sex, lust or really any other risky obstacles define her character, but that comes at a cost in this show. That cost was, of course, her screen time. She did not make up overarching storylines like Rue's love for Jules and her addiciton to drugs. She was also not anyone's main attraction until season 2 when Fezco (the local drug dealer) started taking interest in her. My concern was also that this male lead is indeed a drug dealer. That is not me rejecting any of his good intentions toward her. Funny enough, despite his job, he is probably as nice as the male characters get in this show. Still, he has a dangerous occupation that has been shown to lead to trouble. This is the bad boy-good girl plot that seems to flourish in the media. Like most good girls, her story is only seen as interesting to work with when she becomes a troubled male character's point of interest. Her additonal screen time ultimately amounts to a rushed plot. I would be lying if I said I didn't enjoy her theater production in which she presents a detailed rendition of her life alongside the other characters. In the 2nd season's finale episodes, Lexi also appears to be facing an evolution in her clothing style that reflects these speedy changes. Her outfits become bold, taking on darker colors and more exuberant flourish.

Her outfits were still just a minor thing about her. The psychology of the character was given in brief flashes and short quips, but I had something to work with. Her relationship with Cassie was far more my concern. It took me a minute and even stumped me when I found out later in the series that Cassie was the eldest. She embodies all of the aspects of a stereotypical younger sibling, which we often see presented as bratty, self-centered, spoiled, etc. It is a part of the controversial "birth order theory", which takes a look at how birth order determines a child's capabilities. These qualities tend to stem from the youngest children not having room to be resourceful, probably having an older sibling to fall back on. There was plenty going on in the Howard household for the girls to develop that kind of reliance on one another, although Levinson did not attempt to give them that much screen time. Still, we get a glimpse that a younger Lexi is the more resourceful one to whom Cassie often released her woes. We see their realtionship reach a breaking point in the seadon 2 finale when Lexi's play very much shine's a light on Cassie as a person. In theory, this goes back to the the turbulent lifestyle both girls had to live. Their father had a drug addiction, which we learn later how that impacts their reactions to themselves as well as to characters like Rue. Cassie seems to take the fore-front, or more active approach in their father's slow decent into addiction. She is ready to love him regardless, openly supporting him even though is not specifically sure of what has occurred to him. Lexi is more reserved and noticeably more analytical of her father. We don't get to hear much of how she feels about this, specifically in the aftermath. It seems to have affected Cassie quite blatantly as we see her break down in the last episode, and in front of a live audience nonetheless. It was heartbreaking to watch their cold views of eachother be brought to light. Lexi saw Cassie as broken, but she also saw her sister as someone she hardly knew. This decision of her sister's ditziness and sexual nature sheds some light on Lexi's thought process, but we hardly see her reflect on this in moments that span longer than a minute. We also see Cassie's feelings emerge as well, where she states that Lexi is so "uninteresting" that she has to chronicle everyone's life just to add some spice to her own. Here, the narrative presents some interesting conflict between the two, but they don't get that time together. We are instead shown Lexi running away as Cassie is left to be chased and beaten by Maddie Perez. We are later shown that Lexi does rise again, ready to finish her pretty successful (and expensive looking show). Still, it did not feel like an enjoyable conclusion for either of these characters. Although the show is setting itself up for a third season, I doubt that any more time needs to be waisted as Sam Levinson continues to not flesh out the supposedly less interesting characters. It's clear why Rue remains front and center, but why are other characters given such shallow archs (and possibly unnecessary falls)?

Fezco (Angus Cloud) and Lexi (Maude Apatow) sitting together

Returning to the dynamic between Lexi and Fez is made even more odd when her father's story lingers in the background. Sure, Gez has the laid-back nature that matches her own, but he sells drugs. Plain and simple. Her father used them. This does not seem to give much in terms of morality for her characts. She may question his actions here or there, but it does not seem to affect her as directly as it should. Her attraction to him should be more of a struggle. Honestly l, we could even factor in Rue as an addition to this struggle. Rue and her were close for a long time, and she had to sit and watch as her friend fell into the same path as her father. She has been seen even helping Rue cheat her away out of a positive drug test, marking how strongly she feels about Rue as a friend. We see how this conflicts her to a certain point, but not enough time is given for this reflection to be effective. It is fairly obvious that Fez is the one selling Rue more drugs to fuel this addiction, but Lexi is not allowed to think about that. This would get in the way of the artificial plot that the writers constructed for her in order to push her into the limelight. Her need to start this play and simultaneously run it is also a leap in her character that leaves me with more questions than answers. We see her play review the lives of the show's main characters in an almost sympathetic way, but her narration hardly explains away her conflicting actions alongside her hasty development in confidence. This development presents itself, consequently, as force to drive the plot rather than a natural progression.