Herpes Isn’t Real

"Herpes Isn't Real"

If you suffer from herpes, at one point you might have experienced feeling like you’ve been unfairly turned into some kind of sexual leper now at the mercy of an unpredictable virus hiding in the shadows of your nervous system, waiting to strike at any moment. Most people go through an emotional crisis upon developing an obvious herpes sore for the first time, or getting back a positive test result for herpes, because herpes is for life, right? You are now expected to divulge this information to new romantic partners so they can choose whether or not they want to touch your gross herpes leper body and risk “infection.” Thanks to a rogue scientist, however, it turns out, there’s actually no evidence whatsoever that you’re infectious! You can’t give it and you can’t get it.

According to virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka, Ph.D., none of the medically relevant viruses have actually ever been isolated, and therefore there is no proof of their existence. This includes influenza, HIV, HPV, HSV, and others. In a 2005 interview, Dr. Lanka states that viruses have a supportive role in the interaction of cells, and that they are components of simple life forms and do not exist in complex organisms such as plants, animals, or humans. He also stated in the same interview that antibodies are soluable blood proteins which play a central role in wound healing. I couldn’t find the actual interview where these quotes were taken from (it may only be available in German), but the secondary source is the lecture videos Virus Mania 1 and Virus Mania 2, by Caroline Markolin, Ph.D.

NOTE: I eventually found an English translation of the 2005 interview with Stefan Lanka. You can read it here.

Dr. Lanka also notes that pictures of so called viruses, often found in medical textbooks, can’t claim to show a virus if they do not also provide the original publications which describes how and what from the virus was isolated, and that these original publications aren’t cited anywhere. So what are the pictures of? According to Dr. Lanka, “The photos of the alleged viruses are not showing an isolated virus but cells or cell particles.

Dr. Lanka has encouraged people not to simply believe him, but to instead ask the medical establishment to provide documentation regarding virus isolation. This was in 2001, I believe, and no documentation has been provided to date. He has been looking into the issue since 1994. Now of course there are going to be people who notice that they should have been exposed to the virus but who don’t show any symptoms, and people who show symptoms but are mystified as to how they could have been exposed. But since it’s taught to us all in our younger years that the infectious herpes virus is just a part of life, a whole viral mythology has been introduced to explain that you can carry the virus and never have symptoms, and you can pass the virus on to someone else even though you’ve never had any symptoms. Even if you’ve never kissed anyone, that cold sore could be from grandma, and if you’re a virgin, it could be a mix up at the lab.

So if there is no virus involved, what’s the freaking deal with your symptoms? Let’s look at it from the German New Medicine perspective. In GNM, skin conditions (any condition involving squamous epithelial cells) are simply biological programs running in the body that relate to some kind of touch conflict, or “separation conflict,” which cause meaningful changes in our tissues to support us through the conflict. The body’s biological programs run in two phases: a conflict-active phase, and a healing phase, where the healing phase generally runs as long as the conflict-active phase. The intensity of healing phase symptoms will directly reflect the intensity of the conflict.

A condition that occurs on the lips or genitals has a high probability of being related to sexual and romantic touch from another person, but can also be caused by things that we don’t want touching us, like a dirty straw, or a rapist. In the case of herpes we can equate the conflict-active phase with what is called the “incubation period” of the “herpes virus,” which is usually 2-14 days. Interestingly, the healing phase, which is where the sores appear, also tends to last 2-14 days on average as well.

In the conflict-active phase, there are no herpes symptoms. In fact, the area where the herpes sores will later appear is actually going through a process of numbing. This is the whole point of the biological program running in your body! To protect you from feeling either the separation or touch you don’t want to feel by numbing you. When the conflict is resolved, that’s when, for some, that magic tingle kicks in and you know the sores are on the way! Either way, the sores are painful and have a purpose to heal the numbed area and return it to normal.

I was introduced to this explanation for herpes at a GNM seminar, and I became so interested in the various manifestations of skin conflicts that I continued to explore the idea on my own. In comparing image search results on Google, I couldn’t help but notice that herpes sores look very similar to another very common condition that also involves the mucosa tissue of the mouth – canker sores. I also noticed that the symptoms of both conditions are virtually identical!

  • Both are ulcers or lesions that occur either singly or in clusters on the oral mucosa
  • Both can begin with tingling, itching, or burning sensations
  • Both can present as either blisters or ulcerations
  • Both are painful.Both can be accompanied by fever, swelling, general bodily discomforts
  • “Low immunity” conditions can make people susceptible to both
  • Emotional stress can be a factor in both
  • There can be inflammation and swelling in both
  • Both take about 2-14 days to heal
  • Healing in both can be hastened with B-12 vitamins, iron, and folic acid

The only difference in these two conditions appears to be the purported causation. Apparently there is no known cause for canker sores, and they are said to not be contagious. However, the infamous HSV virus supposedly causes cold sores, making the condition “contagious,” and you, a virtual leper to romantic partners and prospects. How fun for you!

Now, just because Dr. Lanka has found no evidence whatsoever for the presence of a herpes virus (or any other medically-relevant virus) does not mean that it doesn’t exist. However, if they do, their purpose would be to help reconstruct the body while it’s in healing, as Dr. Lanka has stated, and just like GNM has shown for the role of candida and bacteria in other tissues in the body. So even if one day a herpes virus is isolated, we can rest assured it’s a helpful microbe, and NOT the reason you’re having symptoms.

I have a little anecdote to share regarding herpes conflicts. Years ago, a friend of my ex had kissed one of my friends. This is a very good friend of mine and I had never seen her with a cold sore before. He, however, developed his first cold sore the very next morning! Usually it is stated that there is an incubation period before the sore appears but for him it was instantaneous. He was so pissed! He was convinced that my friend had given it to him. Knowing what I know now, I can see that he was probably in a conflict-active phase where he missed the touch of kissing a woman. Once that wish for contact was fulfilled, he went into healing, and boom! Cold sore.

I wanted to get into the wacky world of herpes testing in this post as well, but it’s getting a bit long, so I’ll save that for next time. However, I will say this: the amount of false positives is of particular concern since not one of the tests offers direct evidence of the virus, only other markers assumed to be associated with the virus. So congratulations to us all! It appears we can neither contract herpes from anyone or infect anyone, and, if the herpes virus does exist, it’s not what’s causing your sores, it’s what’s helping to heal them. I think that’s cause for celebration! Happy Hallowe’en!

“The alleged viruses are in reality micro-particles produced by the body cells themselves.” – Torsten Engelbrecht and Dr. Claus Köhnlein M.D., Virus Mania: How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits at Our Expense

* Disclaimer: I am not a doctor and this is not medical advice.


Why Do We Get Cancer?

"What Is Cancer?"

We all know the official story, that cells in your body can suddenly turn rogue and eat you alive unless you turn to chemo, radiation, or surgery to annihilate these “evil” and “malignant” cells. Cancer is the “enemy,” a “terrorist” even, and the detonation of a slew of medical weaponry is necessary to apprehend and destroy this cunning adversary, because otherwise, it will supposedly kill you without mercy. It’s no coincidence that we literally call this “the war on cancer.” It sounds a lot like war terminology, doesn’t it?

There’s a few things that just don’t add up for me though. Have you ever asked yourself how a brain tumor could possibly “grow” when brain cells don’t divide and multiply like other cells in the body? Have you ever wondered why, if the theory of metastasis is correct (cancer cells spreading to other parts of the body via the bloodstream and lymphatic system), that blood and lymph cancers are not the most common secondary cancers? Have you ever wondered why there’s such a huge industry built up around cancer research funding when, according to the Center for Disease Control, the most common killer in America is actually heart disease?

Another point to consider. Doctor directed treatments are the third leading cause of death in the US, according to Dr. Peter Glidden, but there is virtually no discussion of this in mainstream media. That’s kind of weird, right? If you get a cancer diagnosis and opt for chemo and radiation, and you die, the “official” cause of death is usually always cancer, not the “treatments.” Doctors can pump you full of flesh eating chemicals and flesh burning radiation and if you die they can just say it was the cancer.

There are a lot of unanswered questions, and I’ve done my fair share of research on alternative methods of healing cancer, and they are as varied as it gets, from cannabis to baking soda. However, one has stuck out quite prominently for me, and that is German New Medicine. As far as I know it’s the only alternative cancer treatment method that’s actually had the opportunity to be officially tested and verified (30 times apparently).

The success rate of GNM is unusually high, over 90%.  When Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer, the man who developed this method was taken to trial over it, it had to be admitted into the court evidence that over 6,000 of his 6,500 patients with advanced cancer were still alive four to five years later. That’s a pretty impressive track record, and yet, Dr. Hamer has been called a quack by the allopathic medical establishment and experienced intimidation, ostracism, and slander, and has even had eleven attempts made on his life, according to sources who know him. His work has been around for 30 years now, so if he was full of BS, why does his following still continue to grow? There are also lots of testimonials online attesting to the accuracy of his approach. I bet you’d be hard pressed to find the same number of testimonials for chemotherapy. In fact, Google “chemotherapy testimonials” – there are none.

Dr. Hamer has been absolutely vilified in this Wikipedia article, which makes no mention of the effectiveness of his method, and instead tries to capitalize on the evil deeds of Hitler and paint a false and scary picture of a Jew hating Nazi conspiracy theorist doctor who lost his medical license due to “malpractice” and who is responsible for “numerous” deaths in his patients. I guess the authors of this page are expecting you to think “OMG, Hamer’s from Germany? Hitler was from Germany!” I have no idea if Dr. Hamer actually claimed the reason he lost his license to practice medicine was due to a “Jewish conspiracy” – the source is in German – but if he did, he wouldn’t be the first person to point out that there happens to be a lot of Jewish people running industries in the world. GNM has nothing to do with the Nazi’s, and this claim has nothing to do with the effectiveness of his treatment methods. Yes, some of Dr. Hamer’s patients died. Are there no patients dying in the mainstream medical system? It cannot be ignored that over 90% of the people who had advanced stages of cancer were still alive four to five years after Dr. Hamer treated them. Compare this to the “success” rates for chemotherapy that are around 4%, and I think that rate is probably generous. But you can’t sue a doctor if he kills one of your family members with chemo – doctors are immune to malpractice suits in this regard.

I am still quite new to GNM, having only begun to study it last month, but it’s been quite liberating to learn about Dr. Hamer’s take on cancer, given his high rate of success in treating it. He considers “cancer” to be nothing more than a benign biological program running in the body, and one with a very special and significant purpose. Maybe it sounds far-fetched to suggest that lung cancer’s purpose is to help a person breathe better after a death fright, or that ovarian cancer serves to increase estrogen levels to help a woman attract a mate after she’s suffered some kind of profound loss, but that is the pattern that’s been observed and later verified in over 400 cases for each type of cancer. The tumor is there to help, and there is nothing to fear. It’s such a drastic change of viewpoint on cancer from what I’ve been told my whole life, but if I had to choose, I’d trust my life with Hamer any day over the paltry “success” rates of the mainstream medical establishment.

What are your thoughts on all of this? Have you heard of GNM before? Have you explored any other alternative treatments for cancer?

~ “All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered. The point is to discover them.” – Galileo

* Disclaimer: I am not a doctor and this is not medical advice.


Sexual Trauma and Dreams

"Trauma and Dreams"

Every now and then I have a dream that provokes terror or hysterical sadness. It’s more accurate to refer to these dreams as nightmares, or night terrors, but I’ll stick to the term “dreams” for simplicity. There was the dream that was the exact replay of leaving a rapist’s apartment where I was drugged, then there were others in which my father is vying for my naked body and I’m trying to hide myself. There have been others that allude to sexual abuse in more abstract terms, like a baby’s vagina covered in blood and semen, and an old white man with a whip for a penis coming after me and forcing me to carry him on my back. Every one of these had me reeling afterwards, but this is expected given that dreams are a medium through which we can process and address repressed emotions.

Even though it’s obvious to me what the general meaning of these dreams are at face value – rape and incest – it’s interesting to look at some of the research that has delineated some larger overall patterns of how sexual trauma influences the dreamscape. I’ve referred to the book Trauma and Dreams edited by Deirdre Barrett, to see what is commonly observed in the dream experiences of sexually traumatized women. We’ll see that it is usually the emotional reality of the trauma that is replayed to the victim, rather than the actual traumatic event itself. This was certainly clear when I dreamt about leaving a rapist’s apartment, exactly as I had done in real life, but the emotional impact of that dream was devastating.

First, let’s start with the themes usually found in the dreams of women with a history of sexual abuse. Sexual themes are common, not surprisingly, as is an association of sex with negative qualities, such as distrust, shame, anger, guilt, jealously, or anger. For victims of sexual trauma, the sex in their dreams is usually combined with aggression and/or violence, although even in this group, only 15 percent report nightmares where sexual abuse is literally portrayed.

Explicit violence is another common theme in the dreams of sexually abused women, but in contrast to the more general violent themes that are common for many women, sexually traumatized women usually had more details of the violence, like blood or dismemberment present in the dream. There is also more verbal aggression reported in the dreams of this group.

Sexually abused women were also more likely to have a male stranger play a main role in the dream. Often he is faceless, shadowy, or otherwise representative of evil. Many sexually abused women reported dreaming of an evil presence that threatens or succeeds in entering her room or her body. Snakes and worms are also slightly more common in the dreams of sexually abused women, as well as references to body parts or anatomy being more prevalent, especially sexual anatomy. They were also more likely to give more details descriptions of the physical appearance of characters from their dreams.

It’s been interesting to review these themes with the dreams I’ve recorded in the past, dreams that I might otherwise have forgotten because they didn’t seem to have any traumatic significance at face value. It was only after reviewing these themes that the less literal and more symbolic representations of sexual abuse in my dreams became clear, like the dream of the old white man with a whip handle for a penis that was threatening to hurt me. The dreams that most literally pointed to sexual trauma were unforgettable and also tended to be the most emotionally disturbing. No cryptic interpretation was necessary in those cases, and perhaps my propensity to not trust myself has led to a need for more literal representations of the abuse.

Learning to trust myself has been a process I’ve only just begun this year, at thirty years old, and learning to trust my dreams has been a big part of that. It’s interesting that the themes of sexual violence seem to pop up at times when I begin to question my feelings and wonder if maybe I’m crazy for feeling like my dad is a creep. At least this shows me that there’s an aspect of myself, perhaps my unconscious mind, that has my back in all of this and won’t let me deceive myself, because slipping back into the warm comfort of denial tempts me all the time, even though it made my life completely dysfunctional. When you think about how much our unconscious mind holds for us that we don’t “know” about, it’s absolutely amazing that just the right things leak out into consciousness at the just the right time.

~ ” The dream is a little hidden door in the innermost and most secret recesses of the soul.” – Carl Gustav Jung


What Do Fantasies of Giant Breasts Mean?

"Giant Breasts"

I’ve been on a personal quest lately to gain a deeper understanding of the meaning behind sexual fantasies, and have been reading a book by Michael J. Bader, called Arousal: The Secret Logic of Sexual Fantasies, in order to gain some insight on myself. The giant breast fantasy isn’t exactly my thing, but it certainly is a common thing, and I found Bader’s explanation of it pretty interesting, so I thought I’d share.

We already know that hetero men love breasts. Some guys refer to themselves as “breast men” after all, so no surprise there. But have you ever wondered why there’s a sexual fascination with women’s mammary glands whose biological purpose is to feed milk to young infants? If you made the obvious connection and guessed it has to do with motherly nurturing, you’d be right, but according to Bader there’s a lot more to it than that. Actually, this might get weird because it has nothing to do with mothers, and everything to do with mothers.

As I covered in my first post on sexual fantasies, we once again see the primary purpose of a fantasy is to relieve feelings of guilt and worry, which are brought on by pathogenic and negative beliefs about the self and others. Orgasm can only be reached once these harmful beliefs are somehow negated, and the fantasy works to do just that. So what sort of negative beliefs does the breast man have?

According to Bader, he likely has a pathogenic belief that he is undeserving of caretaking, and that his needs are burdensome and greedy, that a woman would experience giving to him as depleting. Therefore he feels he has to prove himself worthy of any caretaking from women. He actually feels guilty needing nurturing from a woman, and feels like it is coercive because, after all, he believes women have nothing to give. That’s pretty harsh. Why would he believe these things? Childhood neglect is a big part of it.

He likely had a relationship with his mother that was very one-sided, one that was all about her: her needs, her moods, her wants. He sees his mother as weak and fragile, as someone who he has to worry about all the time. Bader notes that the result of this relationship is a belief that women don’t “have the capacity or inclination to devote themselves to a man’s pleasure or to their own,” and so to want such a thing leads to extreme guilt.

So with all that unsexy guilt for wanting nurturing in the way, he fantasizes that a woman is turned on by “mothering him,” a.k.a giving him the breast, so that he can get sexually excited. For some men this means fantasizing about actual breastfeeding during sex, but it’s not that he is making any direct sexual connection to his own mother. It’s all about removing the guilt and worry he was trained to have for women. He needs to receive pleasure without having any responsibility for his partner’s needs. He needs her to happily give to him and expect nothing in return.

In the breastfeeding/breast sucking scenario, where the woman wants to give to him and is gratified by giving to him, he is free to let go of the guilt. Not only does she not need him to be her caretaker, she wants him to take from her and isn’t depleted when she gives him maternal nurturing. His desire to take is met with her desire to give. His negative unconscious belief that women are too preoccupied, burdened, depressed, or busy to take pleasure in nurturing him is thus negated. And the bigger the breast, the more nurturing she has to give him.

So there you have it! Even in “extreme” cases where a man is turned on by fantasies of breastfeeding from a woman, it has nothing to do with any creepy latent desire to be sexual with his mother. It’s just that his mother was a selfish narcissist! Or maybe just dysfunctional and depressed. Either way, it’s not about his mother, ladies, it’s all about your enthusiasm and happiness to give to him… and your super luscious breasts.


Is “Taking One For The Team” Just An Excuse?

"Taking One For The Team"

This post could have also been titled, The Enigmatic Mating Dance of the Human Male, because when I think about guys picking up women I am reminded of those dancing birds of paradise from the BBC’s Planet Earth series. Sometimes a guy just needs his friend to keep the friend of the woman he’s interested in company so he can “do his dance” with her complete attention.

“Taking one for the team,” usually refers to how the male’s friend keeps the female’s friend company during the enigmatic mating dance, but can also work vice versa, though it’s more rare. It is meant to help others and is thus a noble human behaviour. It is making a selfless sacrifice for the rest of humankind! I mean, how awkward and weird would it be if someone didn’t keep the woman’s friend company and she was just left standing there all alone rolling her eyes and mumbling obscenities under her breath?

That said, I have a few observations, and it has nothing to do with the true and awesome definition of taking one for the team, it has to do with using this great and noble behaviour as a ruse! Yes, a ruse! To cover up the fact that you had sex with a) someone you weren’t attracted to, or b) someone you fear your friends wouldn’t approve of.

Now I’m sure many people who’ve indulged in too much alcohol before can name at least one time they hooked up with or slept with a person they weren’t that attracted to. It does happen, and it’s just one of those things, and I totally get that no one wants to admit they got way too blasted to tell the difference. So saying you took one for the team in this case is likely just code for, “I don’t want to talk about it.” No biggie, mistakes happen. Better luck next time.

What is actually of interest to me is the use of the term to describe a liaison for which a person is similarly ashamed, but not because they weren’t attracted to their sex partner, but because they fear their friends wouldn’t approve of their sex partner even though they got their world rocked! Yeah, we are that judgmental.

What does that say about us as a culture that sex has been reduced to such a superficial egotistical expression of status-seeking and friend impressing? That we look outside ourselves for our cues to attraction rather than within? That the simple meeting of two mutually attracted bodies for the sole purpose of pleasure has to be accounted for and explained afterwards? There’s so many other layers involved in attraction, like smell and intellect and other oddities, there’s no way another person can decide who you should sleep with!

If all we’re focused on is trying to impress everyone else than I dare to say we’re literally wasting our lives and are right on track for that impending life crisis to hit. At which point, I might add, you can’t get those wasted years back! So what are you waiting for? Live! Live! When it comes to sex, trust your body, not your friends. And don’t apologize for it – ever!

“Sex at age ninety is like trying to shoot pool with a rope.” ~ George Burns


Why We Forget Our Traumas

– "Hidden Memories"

In an effort to understand how I could immediately “forget” being raped, only to recover the memories four years later, I started reading a book by Amanda Ripley called The Unthinkable which discusses people’s seemingly irrational responses when threatened by impending danger. What’s interesting is that people are not as rational as we assume they are. Even when the twin towers were hit with planes, people in the floors below (those who survived) hesitated for an average of six minutes before heading for an exit stairwell. One person reported waiting forty-nine minutes before deciding they needed to leave! The first chapter of this book deals with one survivor’s recollection – or lack thereof – of her experience on 9/11. The first impact rocked the building and she says she remembers the sound when it hit eleven floors above her. Her recollection of the events takes her through the stages of disbelief, frantic deliberation, and finally action, but throughout there is a thick fog of denial, along every step of the way.

She reported that when the first plane hit, instead of running for the door, she wanted nothing more than to stay. The theory is that people want so badly to believe that everything is going to be ok, that they simply stay put. Apparently this is especially common in structure fires – we assume everything is going to be okay because it always has been before. This “normalcy bias” occurs because the brain works by identifying patters, and we understand the present and anticipate the future according to past experience. It’s also mentioned that if everything turns out to be okay then we save ourselves the social embarrassment of overreacting as well.

It’s a herd mentality, and after delaying awhile, another painfully long stage of deliberation sets in where people feel the need to check in with each other and see how others are feeling about the situation. Lucky for this woman, a person in her office quickly began to scream at everyone to leave immediately. She still delayed a bit longer, looking for items to take with her. She was circling in her cubicle and said “it was like I was in a trance.” She chose to bring a mystery novel she had been reading.

Once decending down the stairwell, disbelief and deliberation continued to rack her brain. She said she never felt she was in a hurry. She said “it’s weird because the sound, the way the building shook, should have kept me going fast. But is was almost as if I put the sound away in my mind.” Apparently everyone in the stairwell was very, very calm and moving in an orderly fashion. “Crowds generally become very quiet and docile in a true disaster,” Ripley, the book’s author states.

During her descent she began to make up stories to explain the events, first that a pilot must have had a heart attack or stroke, then after being told that a second plane had hit, that two stupid pilots must have been racing. She could not wrap her head around the magnitude of the situation. Her brain was searching its database for a reasonable explanation. Even when a man told that the hits had been intentional during their descent, she simply ignored this new information and put it out of her mind as if he had never said it. More denial.

When the second plane hit, she says she did not even hear the sound. Her senses were switched on and off at certain key points as happens with many people in traumatizing situations. She recalls someone screaming to get away from the windows and running for the center of the building. She was then overcome by intense anger at herself for being in this situation again (she had been in one of the twin towers during a potentially fatal incident in 1993 as well) and she had a moment of clarity and panic saying to herself, “I’m on the forty-fourth floor of a building. Where am I going? I’m still way up high. I can’t go anywhere!”

Then just as quickly everyone stopped running and continued back down the stairwell again in an orderly fashion like mute robots as if nothing had happened. When asked to describe the sound of the second collision she says “ As far as I’m concerned, I’m telling you, it was as if it didn’t happen. It’s not even that I forgot it. It’s just that it was as if it never happened. Never.” Classic dissociation normally used to describe the experiences of children suffering from physical or sexual abuse. Dissociation, the book states, is an “extreme form of denial,” and as the 9/11 survivor put it, “I could not afford to dwell on it. My job was to just take it one step at a time.”

She further explained, “When you’re in trauma, the mind says, this is a very local problem. This is your little world and everything outside is fine. It can’t afford to say that everything outside is horrible. The sound that I heard on the seventy-third floor should have told me, this is bad. The feeling of the building shaking should have told me, this is bad. The explosion when I was on the fourty-fourth floor: bad. The smell of debris is the lower stairways: bad. Yet in every single moment, I made it my little world here. And nothing else exists.”

When she finally made it to the main floor to exit the building, there were dead bodies all around, this is how her brain processed it: “I’m slowing down because I’m starting to realize that I’m not just looking at debris. My mind says ‘It’s the wrong color.’ That was the first thing. Then I start saying, ‘ It’s the wrong shape.’ Over and over in my mind: ‘It’s the wrong shape.’ It was like I was trying to keep the information out. My eyes were not allowing me to understand. It couldn’t afford it. So I was like, ‘No it can’t be.” Then when I finally realized what it meant to see the wrong color, the wrong shape, that’s when I realized, I’m seeing bodies. That’s when I froze.”

Freezing is apparently also a common response during disasters, but luckily for this women a stranger linked arms with her and said “We’re getting out of here.” She remembers the woman’s dark skin tone, her red sleeve, but then simply stopped seeing altogether. “There was no smoke there. I didn’t see anything at all.” She was not even frightened by this temporary blindness since she was no numb at that point. She was now relying on hearing, but although these two women talked and talked as they walked away, she can’t remember a word she said except when they finally got outside she heard her say, “Look, we made it.” She remembers replying, “Yeah, we’re outside.” But she could still not see anything, and she never even saw the woman in red’s face.

This story really hit home for me. It is a testament to the lengths our brains will go to to protect us from sensory input when a trauma is occurring. Only that which helps us get out alive appears to be consciously processed. It seemed very strange to me at first that something so awful happen to me and that I could completely block it out of my conscious memory. In terms of survival, it doesn’t seem strange at all. It was my own mind protecting me and giving me a chance to overcome my circumstances.

“There are wounds that never show on the body that are deeper and more hurtful than anything that bleeds.” – Laurell K. Hamilton, Mistral’s Kiss


Dear Men, I Was Probably Just Being Nice

"Nice Woman"

Dear Men,

When a woman is being nice to you, it does not always mean she likes you. It doesn’t mean she doesn’t like you either, but please don’t let that awkward moment where you prematurely start fiddling with her shirt strap be the moment where you find out she isn’t actually into you. It’s just gets weird at that point, probably for you as well, and it’s sooo unnecessary. Same goes for those awkward one-armed side-hugs.

I’ve actually had boyfriends in the past who criticized me for being nice to other men because “he’s gonna think you’re into him.” And lo and behold many of them did. And they were wrong.

You know what’s also weird? Not being nice to people because I’m afraid that if I’m nice they’re going to misread it and start acting inappropriately. But if I’m not nice it’s all, “she’s a bitch, blah” when I would actually prefer to be nice to you! So, I hope we can come to an agreement on this, that if I’m being nice there’s nothing more to read into with that. If you want to read into more, there’s always body language and other cues you can use. I think many people have written many books on the subject of other cues. Thanks for listening.

Love,

Courtenay