Poly Planet GAIA | ecosexual love | arts of loving | global holistic health | eros

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

4 of 4 - EcoSex @ U Conn - Anderlini's Gaia - Student Reports: Alexandra's Take

Dear Earthlings:

The EcoSex course at U Conn is in process. It's a great experience. We are reading amazing books. Thinking out of the box and across disciplines. Students are sending their responses in, with discussion questions. In class, we connect the dots: a holograph of what we've read together, the "required readings." Multiple perspectives and good synergy. Here, we offer a glimpse. Serena Anderlini-D'Onofrio's Gaia and the New Politics of Love was one of three cultural theory books. We got four responses: from Michael, Alissa, John, and Alexandra.

Here's Alexandra's take:

Response to Serena Anderlini-D'Onofrio's Gaia and the New Politics of Love: Notes for a Poly Planet

I was intrigued by the idea of separation in this book, specifically the separation of sex and

gender. I have always been confused by the body. I find it absurd that we have such rigid social constructions of gender and sex that certain individuals need to switch their biology to feel natural. Natural, however is a social construct. The feminine and masculine ideals paired with their respective sex labels dumbfound me. Still, I realize that there are a list of traits titled feminine and a list of traited titled masculine. It is not my intention to swipe away these labels, rather I would love for these labels to be independent of sex and or biology, as well as avoid mutual exclusivity. What I mean by this, is that someone with a penis should feel okay wearing a dress, and society should not be shocked by this phenomena. The biologically “male” being should not have to label himself “female” or “male” or “trans,” he should simply be able to explore what it is that intrigues him, whether that be football or high heels or both. I believe that there are infinite ways in which “gender” can be expressed. In an idyllic society, we would halt labelling genders and succumb to the fact that individuals are just that-individual. They do not have to fall into a specific category, though some will. Earth, or Gaia, happens to fall under the category “female.” I support this, for earth has many of the characteristics that fall under the title: she is perceived as loving, nurturing, and emotional. The idea of Gaia as feminine gives power to traits generally considered “weak.” I do not believe in “weak” traits. Thus, I adore the equalizing of qualities that are not detrimental. The idea of Gaia, however, extends beyond Earth as a feminine entity.

Gaia is a theory of love. It showcases the connection between all beings. I first felt to be a part of Gaia on a recent trip to Patagonia. Engulfed by the glory of mountain passes and crystal waters, I couldn’t help but to feel infinitely small, for amidst nature’s grandeur the individual is rendered utterly insignificant. This taste of insignificance, however, spurred a comprehension of connection. I forgot about the body that confines me and surrendered myself to Mother Nature, realizing that I was part of earth itself. The atoms that compose me once ebbed and flowed within a myriad of the universe’s creations. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. We are thus infinitely recycled-- as flowers, as waterfalls, as elephants, as humans. We have been, are, and will be everything. All of this knowledge, learned in various classroom lectures, crashed and rippled over me, and for the first time I truly understood. We are one.

The idea that we are one spurs love. To love the earth is to love yourself. To love a friend is to love yourself. To love an animal is to love yourself. This, in turn means that to hate anything is to hate yourself. Gaia therefore spreads love. Love, in turn fosters kindness and care. This theory also questions monogamy. Why do we feel that love is a depletable resource? Why do we hoard love, choosing to bestow it on some, but not others? I have come to find that I can love infinitely. We live in a world submerged in beauty. Somehow, long ago, a compact spot burst into a infinite slew of planets, stars, and matter. In this endless stretch, Earth, but a speck within the universe, managed to host a plethora of diverse ecosystems and beings. A miracle. A scientific theory. A story. Thinking of this, I have no choice but to surrender to the glory of it all, totally and completely awestruck. I have no choice to fall in love with every tiny creature, plant, speck that earth has to offer. Of course there are different types of loves. A love for a sister is different from a love for a plant, which is different from the love for a lover. Still, I do not believe we need to limit love within the forms themselves. I believe we can love many siblings equally, many friends equally, many animals equally, and even many lovers equally.
There are of course stigmas and negative connotations surrounding many of my believes. Social constructs halt self expression and love. These societal standards, however, are changing. Bit by bit, the collective conscious is shifting. There is an objective reality, but none of us are able to see it. We all then view the world though the events that have shaped us, the DNA that has made us, and maybe even the souls that possess us. We in turn, make our own realities. Therefore, if our collective consciousness were to transform, these concepts would not only be accepted but the “normal” would be disbanded. The Gaia theory can spark this shift.

Published with permission

WGSS 3998 - Ecosexuality and the Ecology of Love

Prof. Serena Anderlini-D'Onofrio

U Conn, Storrs, Spring 2013

Course Announcement and Description

Dear Earthlings:

Let "nature" be your teacher in the arts of love. Education is the heart of democracy, education to love. Come back for more wonders: Students Responses to appear every Tuesday. Book Reports to be scheduled soon, every other Thursday. Check out our summer offerings: Ecosexuality in Portland, OR, July 17-21. Info and Registration here!

Namaste,

Serena Anderlini-D'Onofrio, PhD

Gilf Gaia Extraordinaire

Author of Gaia, Eros, and many other books about love
Professor of Humanities

University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez

Poly Planet GAIA Blog:
http://polyplanet.blogspot.com/

Website: www.serenagaia.com

Be Appraised of Ecosex Community Project PostaHouse
Become a Fan: www.facebook.com/GaiaBlessings

Author's Page/Lists all books:

http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B001JS1VKA

YouTube Uploaded Videos: http://www.youtube.com/SerenaAnderlini

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

3 of 4 - EcoSex @ U Conn - Anderlini's Gaia - Student Responses: John's Take

Dear Earthlings:

Here's John's take:

Response to Serena Anderlini-D'Onofrio's Gaia and the New Politics of Love: Notes for a Poly Planet

Overall, I liked this book. There was a lot of set up in the first two parts that would have left any reader grasping for straws or a formal conclusion. The third section really brings things together. I believe this book does a better job at convincing readers (i.e. me) of a possibility of Ecofeminism as Scientific Theory as a vector to propel better philosophies of interconnectedness in the world.

The book practically opens with, “I propose to focus on an alternative mode of reason that posits symbiosis rather than independence as the basic form of relatedness between individual entities,” (4). This connection between looking at diseases (particularly AIDS) as holistic imbalances rather than allopathic invasions is pretty clearly outlined in the second part of the book, but my question here is do we have examples of this sort of holistic thinking developing into proper scientific theory? Or stated differently, I am not medically or scientifically inclined, but I do appreciate and approve of holistic and natural medicines, but does holistic thinking, especially in the medicinal field, necessarily throw out the scientific method of observation?

Another quote that resonated strongly with me (I have no objections to it, just an observation) is when American foreign policy is compared to allopathic medicinal approach, “The United States is the body, the Twin Towers one of its vital organs,” (78). I hold the pretty unpopular opinion that the United States brought 9/11 upon itself. This is usually taken to mean that I think the United States (and the victims of that day) “deserve” what they got. I don’t mean this in the slightest, but rather that because of American interference in the politics and economies of the Middle East, our sins have come back to bite us in the form of Osama bin Laden and his goons. If we were to end our involvement in that region, it would mean reevaluating our economy. It would force Americans to ask, “Why are we so dependent on fossil fuels, especially those based in the Arabian desert?” or “Why do we consume so much when it is so harmful to not only our environment, but our people?” I think those are the questions that should be asked if we’re going to look at politics and economics holistically rather than allopathically. (Allopathic and compersion, two new words I really like from this book.)

I was raised in a very conservative Christian church. I was once told that just to have an erection prior to marriage was considered a sin. Even though I went to public school, we were still introduced to sex as essentially, the vector for venereal disease and unplanned pregnancy. I think you describe this perfectly when you write, “The AIDS crisis has produced a social energy that links erotic expression with fear,” (105). Even though I had left the church and was pretty much a free thinker by the time I lost my virginity, I still had a rush of frightening emotions (that included things like, “Do I have an STD? Am I going to be a father?” among others) that really had no right to exist in my mind at all. The attitude of fear that emanates from our public institutions regarding sex is really evident and I like how those are quickly contrasted with the Bi-Poly movies you describe so vivdly and how those attitudes as arts of love can help transform the world.

In no way do I want to be put in the position of defending the Catholic Church. So I won’t, I do feel they are demonized in the book. Fairly? Maybe. I’m just not a big fan of demonization of any kind. That being said, I will defend the Medievals. They get a bad rap, especially coming after the fetishized Renaissance. Just like us, the Medievals thought for themselves, governed themselves, and had developed senses of what constituted humanity. In the Great Chain of Being, women DID have souls and spirits, contrary to what’s written on page 8. In the Medieval spiritual hierarchy, men were always above women, but both men AND women had souls (which allowed them to move. Animals also had animus) and spirits (which allows them to think rationally). The belief was that since men were above women, men were closer to God and had a more developed spirit, while women were closer to animals and had stronger souls, making them more animal-like. The topic is still open to debate about how, but historians recognize that women in the Medieval period had more rights and typically better lives than in the “Enlightenment” and especially the Victorian Eras.

Sorry. Just has to defend my friends in the past.

Overall, I loved the book. Fighting paranoia and fear with art is a powerful thing and I want to see both of these movies.

John Nitowski
Published with permission

WGSS 3998 - Ecosexuality and the Ecology of Love

Prof. Serena Anderlini-D'Onofrio

U Conn, Storrs, Spring 2013

Course Announcement and Description

Dear Earthlings:

Namaste,

Serena Anderlini-D'Onofrio, PhD

Gilf Gaia Extraordinaire

Author of Gaia, Eros, and many other books about love
Professor of Humanities

University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez

Poly Planet GAIA Blog:
http://polyplanet.blogspot.com/

Website: www.serenagaia.com

Be Appraised of Ecosex Community Project PostaHouse
Become a Fan: www.facebook.com/GaiaBlessings

Author's Page/Lists all books:

http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B001JS1VKA

YouTube Uploaded Videos: http://www.youtube.com/SerenaAnderlini

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

2 of 4 - EcoSex @ U Conn - Anderlini's Gaia - Student Reports: Alissa's Take

Dear Earthlings:

Here's Alissa's take:

Response to Serena Anderlini-D'Onofrio's Gaia and the New Politics of Love: Notes for a Poly Planet

One line that particularly stood out to me was “As a woman who loves her body in all its parts, and claims jurisdiction over them and the consensual pleasures in which they become engaged, I whole heartedly agree with today’s cultural constructionists that biology is not destiny.” This sentence was of importance to be because it brings up the concept of nature vs. nurture. Our biological make up doesn’t decide who we are. It may define us physically and create limits on certain activities we can participate in, but it does not create the whole person, it’s only a piece of the puzzle. Biology creates the person, but it’s what we do with what we are given that creates an identity. This coincides with the chart that lists “the seed must control reproductive organ” with its listed consequences as “reproduction as destiny” and “excessive population growth.” This portion focuses on the idea that sex is solely used for having children and spreading one’s genes onto an offspring (survival of the fittest). The average person can also relate with this preconceived belief because as a person gets older and has a partner their families, parents, friends will ask the question, when are you having kids? In society’s eyes getting married and having children are steps in the equation and people are looked down upon if they choose otherwise. “Reproduction as destiny” is not a reasonable belief because some people are infertile, or sterile making it difficult to have children, other people choose to focus on a career rather than a have children. In the other books we read the concept of symbiosis been explained over and over again, but a unique perspective that was brought to my attention was that nothing is just a resource. Everything benefits from another piece of Gaia. We humans benefit from the other pieces of Gaia and things such as trees benefit from the air we breathe in and out.

Something brought to my attention that I never gave too much thought to was the idea that the men’s sperm is what fertilizes the woman’s egg. Something as simple as that seems just like a fact, but this can be considered where the whole concept of patriarchal beliefs came from; the idea that sperm (the male form) has power over the ovum (the female form). The man impregnates the woman making him superior and the woman more susceptible to his control. Males dominating created the concept of history. History can be seen as a subject area students study in school but it can also been seen as a gendered view on society. History is told from a male perspective, through the male gaze. Women have recently been given a voice, but those years of suppression cannot be taken back. Men’s point of views has been given a greater importance and they are highlighted for their achievements more than women.

Why do you think men were giving superiority to begin with, was it because of natural selection and physical traits or biological factors like impregnating women?

Alissa Maus
Published with permission

WGSS 3998 - Ecosexuality and the Ecology of Love

Prof. Serena Anderlini-D'Onofrio

U Conn, Storrs, Spring 2013

Course Announcement and Description

Dear Earthlings:

Let "nature" be your teacher in the arts of love. Education is the heart of democracy, education to love. Come back for more wonders: Students Responses to appear every Tuesday. Book Reports scheduled every other Thursday. Check out our summer offerings: Ecosexuality in Portland, OR, July 17-21. Info and Registration here!

Namaste,

Serena Anderlini-D'Onofrio, PhD

Gilf Gaia Extraordinaire

Author of Gaia, Eros, and many other books about love
Professor of Humanities

University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez