The Sprout Problem

Usually about March or April I decide to grow some sprouts. I start half a cup or a cup of seeds, and within a few days I have a glass jar exploding with little green shoots. I can never eat them all before they go bad. So, I've revised my approach to growing sprouts:

1.) Collect 3 or 4 pint-ish sized glass jars with lids.

2.) Pick some beans-- I've had good luck with dried beans from the grocery store, and I've never used special sprouting beans. Google them to make sure they aren't toxic when eaten raw. You can also sprout smaller seeds, but beans are easier and make less of a mess.

3.) Rinse about two tablespoons of beans in a berry strainer or colander. If you don't have either of those, you can rinse them by filling a bowl with water and rubbing the beans underwater in your hands.

4.) Put the beans in the bottom of the jar. Fill the jar with water. Cover the jar, and let it sit for 12 hours.

5.) Drain the water (you can use cheesecloth or a sprouting lid for this, but you can also be careful and use your fingers), rinse the beans in just enough water to cover them, and then drain them so they are moist but not submerged. Put them in a warm, sunny place.

6.) Rinse them twice a day until they are long enough to eat, usually half an inch to two inches. Then put them in the refrigerator to keep them fresh until you eat them. Meanwhile, one to three days after you start the first batch (depending on their growth rate), start another 1-2 tablespoons in the second jar.

7.) Repeat with the third jar. Put the first jar back into the mix, and enjoy indefinite cheap sprouts.

8.) Nom.

"Real" Relationships

TW corrective rape, abuse

Sometimes people say, "You just identify as asexual [or aromantic] because you haven't been in enough relationships yet."

Sometimes people say, "You just identify as asexual [or aromantic] because you haven't been in real relationships."

And sometimes people say, "Anyone who identifies as asexual [or aromantic] just hasn't been in real relationships."

Besides the ignorance and arrogance inherent in these statements, they upset me for another reason.

They upset me because I've been in "real" (romantic/sexual) relationships and I've paid the price for it. I know, too, that I've been much luckier than other aces and aromantics. No one ever raped me to "fix" me, or raped me because I didn't want sex enough, or tried to force me to get medical treatment. No one ever decided that my being asexual or aromantic meant I didn't love them and that a ten-year marriage was worthless.

Sometimes I wonder if I would have stayed quite as long as I did, at the end, if I had known I was aromantic. Sometimes it felt like there was something missing, some rush, some sense of warm fuzzies… and I just kept waiting for it. Now I know that's just not me, that I don't experience those things, and I wish someone had told me then.

I'm an adult. I've been in some good (romantic/sexual) relationships and some bad ones. I've had experiences that I can't quite bring myself to call abusive, but that I would call so if someone else told me about them. I've had my head, my self-worth, and my dignity screwed with in these "real" (romantic/sexual) relationships.

So don't you dare tell me that never happened. Don't you dare erase my experiences, or the experiences of those who have had it so much worse than me.

The True Cost of Cheap Food

Someone on Tumblr posted a link to this budget raw vegan food blog, and since I'm thinking about going vegan for Lent, I took a look.

On February 12th, the smoothies and ice cream have bananas, and the chocolate toast and the brownies have cocoa powder. On February 5th, the smoothies have bananas and the dessert has bananas and cocoa powder. On January 29th, the smoothies have bananas and cocoa powder and the dessert has bananas. The trend continues through the archives-- bananas are a common ingredient in anything sweet, because they add a creamy texture without dairy, and cocoa powder is also a common ingredient. I found praise for bananas at this raw foods site and I know bananas are a common ingredient in vegan ice cream, and sometimes in baking.

This wouldn't bother me so much if it weren't a blog about eating on a budget, to show anyone how affordable the raw, vegan lifestyle can be. But-- the banana industry is plagued by hideous labor problems. Chiquita, a major exporter of bananas to the US, has given money to violent militia groups. Maybe things have changed in the past ten years, but Ecuador, where Dole and Del Monte get a lot of their bananas, uses a lot of child labor. The cocoa industry, particularly Ghana and Cote d'Ivoire, which produce about 60% of the world's chocolate, exploits over 100,000 children, about 10% of whom may have been trafficked. A report aired only a month ago about how efforts to stop child slavery and exploitation in the cocoa industry have done little, which echoes the findings of other investigate efforts. The reason bananas and cocoa powder are cheap enough to be a staple of the raw lifestyle is because the industry is built on the backs of exploited workers, especially children; their sweat, blood, and unpaid labor subsidize our cheap treats.

The problem isn't limited to bananas and chocolate, of course; among others, the tea and coffee industries are also plagued with human rights abuses, as is the garment manufacturing industry. But bananas and chocolate are two of the big ones. And the problem is of course not limited, by any stretch of the imagination, to either the raw food community or the vegan community, though that is where I see bananas most commonly used as staples; bananas, after all, make up about half of all US fresh fruit imports (link goes to PDF). Against a backdrop of concern for ethical eating, reliance on food subsidized by human rights abuses stands out more than in other communities; however, the problems of human rights abuses in our food supply chain are concerns for everyone, whatever our diets.

Sexual Attraction

The definition of asexuality is "not experiencing sexual attraction" or "not experiencing sexual attraction to others" or "not experiencing sexual attraction to any gender." This frequently is conflated with "I don't have sex" or "I don't want to have sex," which tends to turn any discussion of asexuality outside the asexual umbrella into a tedious 101... sometimes more like a remedial class. If I never hear "demisexuality is only wanting sex with someone you ~love~" again, it will be too soon. And, of course, it's hard to define sexual attraction well, especially if you don't experience it. You can deduce it exists via the experiences of other people, but it's a difficult investigative method to practice.

So I thought I would talk about what it means for me not to experience sexual attraction. These are my experiences, and do not reflect on any other person.

I don't understand what it means to find someone sexy or hot. I understand that it's a way of finding someone desirable, but I've never been able to grapple with the idea any more closely than that. Sometimes I use the words anyway, as a way of indicating that I find something breathtakingly awesome, but I'm not really sure what other people mean by them.

I've never met anyone I wanted to have sex with-- although this is a hard statement to explain, since the English language uses want for so many experiences. I've been in relationships where I felt comfortable having sex, and where I had positive feelings about having sex; I've been in relationships where I thought about future sex with pleasant anticipation. But I never felt any regret that the future sex was not in the present, nor did I feel any anxiety about waiting until it was. It was a "that would be nice" rather than "I want that." I do not know anyone I want to have sex with, by any definition of the word want. I wouldn't characterize this as "I don't want to have sex," because I'm fairly neutral about sex itself, but as "I don't want to have sex with anyone." Maybe one day I will meet the sort of person, or have the sort of relationship, where I want to have sex despite not experiencing sexual attraction; right now, it's as if my lack of sexual attraction leaves me in neutral, and there are not enough other "positives" to push me over into drive. I'm okay with the idea of having sex in the abstract, but I don't know anyone I want it with, and I never have-- not even when I was, supposedly, a hormone-ridden teenager.

Speaking of which, it took me a long time to figure out why other people have sex. It was something I knew most (as a teengaer, I probably thought "all") people wanted, and I didn't want it, so I assumed it was just something you grew into later. I couldn't figure out why the people around me wanted and were having sex, and I didn't and wasn't. It took me a long time to figure out there was something different about me. Growing up in a moderately conservative sex, it wasn't hard to obey the church's teaching on premarital sex. It wasn't hard at all.

I also have a hard time understanding people's motivations sometimes, whether those people are real or fictional. I've never really understood why one might have an affair, though I realize there are many other reasons besides experiencing sexual attraction. I never understood the story of Lancelot and Guinevere, why their attraction was so irresistible, what I was missing that other people got, or even what that attraction was. (As a side note, I am also aromantic, so I don't get the romance side or the sex side of forbidden love affairs; this probably contributes to my puzzlement.) When people start doing the whole sexual tension thing, my initial reaction is usually "Wait, what are you doing, why are you acting so strangely?" before I realize what's going on. I understand flirting and banter, to a point-- I just can't follow the lines of how you would have some sort of sexual feelings for someone that would change your behavior towards them. I'm not trying to imply, at all, that these motivations are wrong-- I just can't wrap my head around them.

I've never found people to be a turn-on-- not anyone. Insofar as I am ever turned on in the company of people, the common thread is always talking about sex, not being around any one person. I've never been able to really understand the appeal of one-night stands or casual sex, though I get that sex can be pleasurable no matter how well or not well you know your partner. I don't understand why you would have sex with someone you don't really like, what qualities they could have that would make this appealing. I'm not really sure what people mean when they talk about sexual chemistry. I get platonic chemistry just fine-- some people simply get along very well, and there's a "spark." But I have trouble translating the concept to a sexual context.

Presumably there's something most people feel that leads them to want (for some definitions of the word-- maybe another is better), or rather desire, sex with some people over sex with other people. If I sat down to make that calculation, it would go something like, "Well, I know and trust this person, and I believe them to be respectful of my body..." but I'm quite certain that that's not sexual attraction (though of course those factors are important in choosing sexual partners for everyone, not just aces). But say you have a group of acquaintances of mixed demographics that you know equally well, believe to be decent people familiar with affirmative consent and all that, and you're fairly sexually compatible with all of them-- what is it that makes you more drawn to have sex with some people than others? Aesthetic qualities? Personality? Romantic attraction? All of these, presumably, but is there something more?

These are just my experiences, and let me reiterate that my not being able to understand people's behavior is not the same thing as my passing moral judgement on people's behavior. I am saying no more and no less than "I cannot understand the motivations." And I'm not asking anyone to explain them to me-- I'm just illustrating what it means, for me, not to experience sexual attraction.

Gynecological Care

Once upon a time, I said to my doctor, "I'm [early twenties] but not sexually active. What should I be doing in the way of gynecological care?"

He said, "You don't really need an exam or tests; that's mostly to make sure you haven't picked up any STIs or things that could result from them."

"What about something that could be wrong with my reproductive tract that doesn't result from sex?"

"That's not very likely."

I said, "And what if I continue to not be sexually active?"

He said, "Well, if you think something is wrong, you're having irregular bleeding, or pain, you should have an exam. If you want to have the exam, that's fine. But it's really up to you; you don't need it."

I was under the impression that there were standards for regular gynecological care whether or not one was sexually active. I realized that maybe the doctor hadn't understood the length of time I was talking about-- I might be fine at, say, twenty-five without any care, but what about thirty? or forty? I felt too awkward to say anything more, unfortunately.

I was thinking about that today, and I decided to look up more definite and authoritative standards. I consulted Scarleteen and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

The ACOG, in their publication "Your First Gynecologic Visit," says these things:

"Girls should have their first gynecologic visit between the ages of 13 years and 15 years... The first visit may be just a talk between you and your doctor. You can find out what to expect at future visits and get information about how to stay healthy. You also may have certain exams... Even though you probably will not have a pelvic exam, you should know what one is. Another test that you will have later (at age 21 years) is a Pap test."

So the ACOG guidelines are fairly clear: start seeing the obgyn as a teenager, start having Pap smears at age 21. Pap smears check for the effects of STIs, but you can have cervical complications if you're not sexually active.

In response to the question "About how old should you be when you start visiting the Ob-Gyn?" Scarleteen writes,

"To ensure proper sexual health, women should start getting annual gynecologist check-ups shortly after they start having periods. Check-ups are especially important if...

1. You have a family history of reproductive cancers and conditions.
2. You are sexually active.
3. You have really irregular or abnormal menstrual cycles, including excessive pain and excessive bleeding.
4. You are over the age of 17 and have not had a menstrual period."

This is also fairly clear: go as a teenager, especially if you're having sex.

In the article "Your First Gynecologist Visit," Scarleteen writes:

"In a female-bodied person's teens or twenties, either after having at least somewhat regular periods, after becoming sexually active, or because of some sort of reproductive health concern, question or issue, we may begin the habit of having a yearly exam or even just a consult with a gynecologist or a general healthcare provider who can provide gynecological healthcare. It's smart to check in with a reproductive/sexual healthcare provider every year or two as part of our overall preventative healthcare... Do you need to go when you're very young and you haven't been at all sexually active yet (in other words, had any kind of genital sex)? No. It's not a need yet, especially if you're not having any issues when it comes to your period or any kind of pelvic or vulvar pain or discomfort. In fact, if you do go now, not having been sexually active at all, and if you have no issues you need investigated -- like severe menstrual cramps or an absent period -- it's likely your first visit won't involve an actual exam at all, but will be more like the general physical you get at your yearly checkup from your family doctor. You may even just have a consultation, where you and the doctor just talk.

... If you have not been at all sexually active yet, and are not having any possible reproductive issues you want him or her to look into, your exam may end with that abdominal exam and blood work. But if you have been sexually active, if you're in your late teens or twenties, if you do have complaints or issues with your period or any part of your menstrual cycle, if you've been having any sort of reproductive issues -- like pelvic, vulvar, vaginal or rectal pain or discomfort, unexplained vaginal bleeding or spotting, or any unusual discharges, etc. -- then the rest of your exam will likely continue as follows.

... You may or may not get a speculum exam: if you have not been in any way sexually active and/or are under 21, you won't usually need a speculum exam yet.

... The ACOG is currently advising that pap smears, specifically, begin either at age 21, or three years after first vaginal intercourse, whichever comes first. Whether or not you get a pap smear often depends on the specific doctor's practice -- and when you want to start them yourself -- but as of right now, the most general guidelines of most medical associations and practices are roughly in agreement: those who have been sexually active for three years (or less), or who 21 or over (including those not yet sexually active), are usually encouraged to begin pap smears and have them yearly to every few years."

So, basically, my doctor gave me bad information, and I really wonder at it. Was my doctor of the opinion that if I were not sexually active I did not really need gynecological care, and trying to spare me unnecessary procedures? Was he assuming that my question about not being sexually active was just to save face? Did he think I was worrying about not getting laid for a few months instead of contemplating the possibility of lifelong celibacy?

I'm worried that doctors giving people inaccurate information because they don't take celibacy seriously is going to lead to people making poor medical decisions. I never sought gynecological care from that doctor, or a recommendation to an obgyn; after what he said, I wasn't sure how to bring it up. The recommendations for people with vaginas do seem to be fairly clear, so it's a question of doctors following those recommendations. This seems like it could be a problem for aces with vaginas*, since many people in the ace community are not only celibate but contemplating the possibility of remaining so for a large part, or all, of their lives.

Has anyone else had similar experiences? Any stories to tell about navigating reproductive health care from an ace standpoint?**

*I don't know anything about reproductive health guidelines/timing of exams/whether recommended onset of exams is linked to onset of sex for people with penises, but it could be a problem here too.

**For any set of genitals.

The Modesty Survey, part two

(Initial comments were here.)

What is this?

It’s a rhetorical question— I know I’ve actually read through this before, and found it really bizarre and misogynistic, but I didn’t remember it being this bad.

Statement: “Denim jackets with faded sections on the chest draw too much attention to the bust.” [agree/disagree]

“Absolutely! Do you WANT people to think that section of your clothing is getting rubbed a lot more?”

Statement: “It is okay for girls to wear tighter and/or more revealing clothes if they are working out.” [agree/disagree]

“If one so implicitly desires to work out in an “exercise bra,” they can put a home-gym in their basement.”

“However, if they are working out in a room full of brutes then where’s the wisdom or purity in that? Be discerning.”

“When possible it would be better to not work out/exercise in the presence of guys so that modesty is not an issue and comfort can be chosen instead.”

“Only if there are no guys around. Girls should avoid working out around guys as much as possible.”

“Just as at the beach, the opera and the girls’ volleyball game, guys’ hormones don’t magically shut off at the health club. Obviously, if there aren’t any guys around, the rules are somewhat different. Some activities that are co-ed should be segregated.”

Statement: “Immodest clothing is not a problem (for you) when a girl in your own family wears it.” [agree/disagree]

“My younger sister, 14, is just recently becoming more of a young lady. It was not too long ago that I (for the first time) had to bring up her dress to her. It’s not a question of incest. It’s a question of instinct. I could probably think for a moment and realize that it’s my sister, but why be put in that position in the beginning?” [this from a 22-year-old, by the way]

“I radically disagree. It does not matter if the girl is my sister or not, it is still an assault on godly beauty, and my chastity.”

“Even my Mom can attract my attention if she isn’t careful.” [if she isn’t careful. If SHE isn’t careful. If she isn’t CAREFUL. !!!]

Statement: “A technically modest outfit can be a stumbling block when it has attached sexual associations (e.g. a “school girl” outfit after Britney Spears released a music video where she was dressed as an “innocent” school girl, but acted very provocatively.)” [agree/disagree]

“It is a bad reflection on the girl (to me) when they knowingly emulate a style with obvious immoral or immodest connotations. And how are we to know if they are not doing this on purpose?”

Statement: “Showing any cleavage is immodest.” [agree/disagree]

“Any amount of cleavage immediately inspires the mind to think of breasts, which should be for only a girl’s husband. And thoughts of breasts lead to more sinful thoughts.”

“I think that clothes that show cleavage should be purged out of the wardrobe.” [whoops, there goes half my wardrobe…]

“Most guys like to look at girls breasts anyways, if a girl is showing it off it’s almost like your telling him it is okay.”

“It’s probably my largest temptation. Keep it hidden for the husband.”

Statement: “Exposing the chest below the collarbone, even without cleavage, is immodest.” [agree/disagree]

“Immodesty has to start somewhere, we should not be trying to walk the line, but flee from it.”

“I agree mildly—let me explain. The more skin that is exposed the more risk of being a stumbling block to a brother. And another caution is that if you have a dress that has a neck that comes down past the collar bone (I have seen it especially on those that have squarish necks) you have much more of a chance when you bend over of exposing yourself. (and don’t kid yourself by saying “I won’t bend over”) Most often from the dresses that I have seen that expose the chest bellow the collar bone are immodest if you bend over (cleavage or worse will be visible.) Thus I believe that it is generally immodest to wear a dress that exposes below the collarbone. Does this make sense? I do not think that it is necessarily immodest for me to see your collarbone, but almost all dresses that exposes your collar bone will be immodest.”

[but see also:] “As a man, I don’t really see how anyone could really defend this position. Never once in my long career of being in a locker room and hearing lewd talk have I ever heard a man say “DUDE! DID YOU SEE HER COLLAR BONE!?!? AND THE TWO INCHES OF SKIN BENEATH IT?!”“

Statement: “Seeing even an inch of skin between the bottom of a girl’s shirt and her pants is a stumbling block.” [agree/disagree] [and have you noticed how these questions are written in such a leading fashion?]

“I wouldn’t say it’s a stumbling block, but it says something about the girl if she’s wearing a shirt that doesn’t come down all the way. A girl that dresses like that is generally going to be immodest anyway, in my opinion.”

Statement: “Semi-transparent sleeves are a stumbling block.” [agree/disagree]

“They are often a symptom of girls trying to attract guys with their bodies under the guise of modesty. Check your hearts.”

Statement: “It is a stumbling block for a girl to sit with her legs spread apart.” [agree/disagree]

“Respect yourself. That’s not respectful.”

“It is not a stumbling block, but it is definitely unladylike.”

“Not a stumbling block, but poor manners.”

“For one thing, it’s not the way any girl should sit in the first place.”

Statement: “It is a stumbling block to see a girl lying down, even if she’s just hanging out on the floor or on a couch with her friends.” [agree/disagree]

“Again a lot depends on what she’s wearing, exactly how she’s lying, the atmosphere of the situation, and the state of mind of the guy observing her, but there is a very real possibility (perhaps probability) that it could be problematic, especially if the guy is already attracted to the girl.”

“I think there should be a careful evaluation on the part of the girl before lying down around a bunch of guys. However, in terms of the inherent modest/immodesty of the action, I can’t say it is a stumbling block by itself. In certain clothes, however, it would be a clear, 100% problem.”

“Somehow, lying down just seems to draw attention to all of the wrong places (face down=buttocks; side=hips; face up=breasts)”

“Depends on how she’s lying, though I lean towards it being immodest.”

“Even modest cloths can become immodest when some people lie down. And all around it’s not very proper. Although if a girl had to lay down I find it less of a stumbling block if she laid down on her side instead of her back.”

“It can almost look “inviting.”“

Statement: “A girl bending over and exposing her lower back is a stumbling block.” [agree/disagree]

“Yes, a bit. I love it when a lady places her hand behind her to cover her lower back. I think that is so thoughtful!”

“It does not necessarily mean that I would imply immodesty upon that person, because such breaches are usually ‘accidental’ and I would avert my eyes. But don’t think it’s ok to keep on doing it carelessly.”

Statement: “Lifting a long skirt any higher than the knee in order to step over something is a stumbling block.” [agree/disagree]

“Anywhere you’d need to do that, you should probably be wearing [modest] pants.”

“I have known a lot of people that only wear skirts and they have done pretty much everything in them and they have never had to hike their skirts up past their knees.”

“Yes, it is. I’m tempted to see how high your going to pull it up and my imagination starts to wander away from where I’d like it. It doesn’t have to go above your knee for you to step over something, especially if it’s a really loose skirt. If it does then you should probably not step over it or get another girl to help you.”

“It should not come above the knee. Pants or skirts should always be at least knee length and stay that far down.”

[but see also:] “Lifting long skirts is *necessary* if a woman wants to wear those garments while being active. It is certainly not the responsibility of women to stay inside all day rather than risk tempting someone; when it comes to necessary activities, it’s guys’ responsibility to control ourselves.”

Statement: “Seeing a girl’s chest bounce when she is walking or running is a stumbling block.” [agree/disagree]

“This is mostly an issue with undersized and push-up bras. General tip: Uncomfortable bras probably weren’t designed to be uncomfortable, but rather to attract guys.”

“When walking, yes. Running is more understandable, and I usually am not tempted to look at the chest of a girl running anyway.”

“Running/exercise garments are cheap. Please use them.” [they’re really, really not]

“Please don’t let your chest bounce. I’m sorry, but that can really be distracting.”

“I can’t agree more. Girls need to take this into consideration before taking off and running.”

I could go on and on, but most of this speaks for itself. Oh no, I have breasts, and they move when I walk! The horror! (If anyone without breasts has, for any reason, doubts about the ridiculousness of this criticism, try this experiment: fasten two filled water balloons to your chest. Try to move without making them bounce.) Women, beware lest you bend over, exercise, walk, lay, nay sit in the presence of a man lest you do it too ~sexily~! It's best for you to wear a potato sack and not move at all.

Have I mentioned that this survey has pictures? It is illustrated with pictures of the immodest fashions in question-- if they're so alluring, why are the survey-makers putting them in the way of the boys and men taking this survey? It's uncomfortably reminiscent of a bunch of dudes sitting around perving over pictures of women and then blaming the women for making them do it.

The picture at the top shows a woman who's covering her face below the eyes. Is this really the ideal the bloggers are holding up? Do they realize that if women dressed like this, the only thing it would accomplish is raising a generation of men with eye fetishes?

I also recall that, when asked if they would make an equivalent survey about men, the survey-makers simply said "No." This is not about modesty. It's about controlling women. If I said, “Men, when you sit with your legs open it’s a stumbling block because it highlights the fact that you have external genitalia, please stop doing that,” I’d probably be called a freak and told to get therapy for my abnormal lusts. If I said, "Men, everyone knows women are into big biceps, so you should wear long-sleeved shirts at all times so as not to tempt us," I'd get a lecture on propriety. If I said, "Men, your pecs are too sexy, you must always wear baggy shirts," I'd be told that women simply don't work that way. This is a double standard, about controlling the behavior of 50% of the people on the planet, and I'm not sure what it has to do with Christianity.

(The same blog that hosts the survey also hosts a lot of stuff about reviving chivalry [women, pretend you need help to make men feel good about themselves!] and what makes a "real man" and a "real woman," so I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the survey. But I am, and what's more, I'm thoroughly creeped out.)

P.S. Apparently I'm not a real woman. Oh no! Whatever shall I do?

Why is it so hard to be truthful about Planned Parenthood? A response.

Dianna Anderson has a guest post up at Think Christian: Why is it so hard to be truthful about Planned Parenthood? There was one comment in particular to which I wanted to reply, but to create an account required my zip code, so I'm replying here.

Dianna's post was a response to some rhetoric that's come up re: the Komen situation, and it laid out some basic information about Planned Parenthood's services and funding-- they do a lot of stuff that isn't abortion, and abortions are not federally funded. One commenter replied (spread over two comments, which I have excerpted), "The funding of PP is always supporting abortion. By giving them money to support non-abortion services, one has allowed them have more money to perform abortions. It's the same reason the government does not allow money to be sent to terrorist organization, even if a particular dollar is used in humanitarian good, other money is then freed up for the sinful aspects of the organization. So, the government should not at all be funding abortion services providers, even if tax-dollars never get spent on abortions... I still stand by my other assertion that any money given to PP indirectly supports abortion."

So here's my question, for people who are pro-life and support what the Komen Foundation did. Say this assertion is true-- if any money given to Planned Parenthood allows other money to be used for abortions-- at what point does this justify not funding any of their other services? How many unaborted babies justify how many women dying of uncaught breast cancer, or of HIV/AIDS? And are you, indeed, willing to make that sort of calculation, trading lives for lives?

Think about that. If you make this argument, are you willing to say that it is okay to let people die of cancer and STDs in order to prevent abortion?

I'm not. I'm emphatically not. I'm pro-life; I want there to be fewer abortions in the world. But unfunding health care for some of the most vulnerable segments of society is not the way to do it.

Vegetarianism: Not A Magic Bullet

I've been reading Tasha's writing about being vegan and then transitioning back to omnivory, and it's made me think.

Originally she posited veganism as the "perfect" diet, the "best" diet, the one-size-fits-all good-for-everyone-and-the-planet diet. Then, after she had to stop being vegan because it was making her sick, she seemed to think the same thing about omnivory.

I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all diet. I think that if most people eat less meat and fewer animal products, most of us, and the planet, will be better off. But for any individual person, their diet is not any of my business and I have no right to judge. (And I really try not to; I'm guilty of being judgmental about the people who like to flaunt their carnivory, but really, I have much better things to do with my energy.)

Anyway; some people do well as vegans and some don't. Some people do well as vegetarians and some don't. Some people do well eating meat and some don't. This depends on their bodies, their minds, their cultures, their socio-economic class, their geographic location, and many other factors.

By way of example, I'm going to talk about what happened when I went vegetarian. I hear a lot of accounts of people going vegan and vegetarian that recount how wonderful it was for them and how much it improved their health, but not many accounts like mine, which goes: nothing happened.

I stopped eating meat over a period of a few years, and also tried to reduce my dairy intake/switch to organic dairy from pastured cows. I have the same amount of energy as I did before, I put on a good deal of weight (which I think is unrelated), and I still get sick about as frequently. My skin cleared up a bit, and my periods got lighter, but not right away, and I think that has to do with just getting older.

I'm okay with this, because I didn't go vegetarian for the health benefits, but because I didn't want to eat flesh any more. But dietary changes are not always miraculous, not always a magic bullet. Be gentle and patient with yourself. If a particular way of eating doesn't give the results you wanted, you don't have to stick with it. Just listen to your body, and do right by it.

A Carnival for Aces: Roundup

Hello everyone,

Due to the holidays and my lack of advertising, I only got a few submissions for the Carnival, but those few are greatly appreciated! Here they are:

At An Asexual Space, Looking Into 2012

At Asexual Love, 2012, the BEST YEAR EVER!

And here at Confessions of an Ist, Desires

Thanks again to those who submitted! As another reminder, this month's carnival is being held at quod inane vocamus and the theme is re/presentation.

Desires

This is going to be a bit long, so I've broken it into three sections: what I want for aces from the world, what I want for aces from aces, and what I want for me. They're in that order, since the third section is probably the least interesting to others. TW for acephobia and conversion attempts.

The World:
I want the world to be okay with asexuality. I don't want anyone else to have to go through electroshock in an attempt to "cure" them. I don't want anyone else to be told that they're broken or sick or sinful. I want the world to accept asexuality, and while we're at it, everyone else's sexual orientations and gender expressions, too.

I want visibility. I want asexual characters in Western visual media who aren't white, middle- or upper-class, brilliant, cold, socially awkward, men (or brilliant, sometimes-cold-and-socially-awkward aliens). Of the three well-known ace characters, two are frequently labelled as non-neurotypical and the third is described as a lonely god. I want asexual characters that don't reinforce the stereotype that being asexual makes you "weird," that only "weird" people are asexual. (Which is, of course, not to imply that there's anything wrong with being either non-neurotypical or "weird." However, I feel the current media representation is reinforcing the idea of a causal relationship that, for most aces, doesn't exist.)

I want education. I want people to stop conflating asexuality with celibacy or with lack of a sex drive. I want people to stop conflating "relationship" with "sexual and/or romantic relationship." I want people to stop conflating asexuality with asexual reproduction. I want not to have to explain asexuality to each new therapist I see.

The Ace Community:

I want us to find a way to embrace the wide diversity of aceness. I want us to not perpetuate the stereotype that being ace means not having or enjoying sex while supporting and including those aces who really aren't into sex at all, thank you very much. I want us to find more to talk about than cake. I want us to stop using the term "sexuals" and the ace triangle.

I want us to be able to undertake some of this education, and reach out to people who think they're broken or there's something wrong with them. I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone say "I thought I was a freak, and then I discovered the concept of asexuality." I want us to help other people to that realization if it applies to them.

Myself:

I want stronger relationships. I feel like I am in a no-person's land where I don't know exactly where I am going in terms of intimacy. I want to make friends in the city to which I just moved, and I want to figure out where my existing strong friendships are going. I want to figure out what being in a partnership would look like, and if I want that (I suspect it would look very different with each potential partner). I want to figure out what being in a network of equally strong intimate relationships would be like, and which of those I want more. Basically I want to figure out how to navigate intimate relationships as an aromantic asexual.

Will any of this happen? Who knows. But at least, now, I have a map.