I did a search for Raw Food diet on Google (for fun) and came across this crazy website www.beyondveg.com. What in the world? It is so negative, and it attacks raw foodists, vegetarians, fruitarians, etc. I don't get why people are so negative about others' food choices. Live and let live. Yikes.

Raw Daddy -- livin' raw and lovin' it

-If you had enough time on your hands - I'm sure you could prove that I didn't exist....and get plenty of witnesses and scientific data to back you up. Ha! ha!

-You are smart to realize......that you can 'appear' smart by simply giving 'expert criticism' and 'debate' on all the good things SOME ONE ELSE IS DOING! Ha! ha!

-David Mason

When Tom Billings (the author of BV) was a raw foodist, he was a fanatic raw foodist. Now that he is a cooked omni, he hasn't lost any of his fanaticism.

Here is a link that explains the faults in the BeyondVeg logic.

Sorry, friends, but Tom Billings is not all wrong. The fellow who wrote that long article dissecting TB's views, has produced the most astonishing case of high dudgeon that I have ever encountered, anywhere.

He attacks TB for not giving complete information about fruit, but that is not true. Last time I looked at TB's site, he clearly explained the vast difference between the modern, over-juicy, over-sweet, over-bred, over-hybridized, low-mineral fruit - and the wild stuff eaten millenia ago in paleolithic societies.

I am not 100% raw either. What does the writer of the article on the link expect us all to do - move to the tropics? I don't have the ability or the capacity to do that, so I will adjust to my locale with its cold winters by eating nice, hot, cooked, boiled bean soup, containing a gob of fat.

Yes, we are apes, sort-of, but so what? It has been thousands of years since "we" ate like apes and, right or wrong, good or bad, moral or immoral, practical or impractical - I don't know - our bodies and digestive systems have evolved to need more than what has proved to be some pretty deficient vegetarian diets. What would the writer have Billings and me and others do - starve ourselves to death to prove a point? Some of us just can't stand a 100% raw diet, year after year - we get weak & sick. And if something as harmless as hearty cooked food is going to reverse our illness, I would like anyone reading this to please tell me why I should not eat that cooked food from time to time.

Can anyone here on this site show me someone who has been a raw-food vegan for 50 or more years - no supplements - and who is in the great state of health that the writer of the anti-Tom Billings article thinks that he himself is in? What is this man's name, and where can I see a recent photo of him?

The only good thing in the article is his statements about cows being un-natural and treated cruelly.

Horsea:

Does it really matter? You make your own food choices, I make mine, everyone makes his or hers. If you want to eat boiled bean soup (and it works for you), then I say go for it. If I want to not eat it (and it works for me), then I say I should be allowed to do so. I don't care if there is a 50-year raw vegan in great health. Raw veganism is a lifestyle that I embrace because I enjoy how it makes me feel, physically. I find that it has solved the digestive issues that I had for years and that I no longer suffer from. Other people may find that it creates problems for them. Either way, we are correct. I don't think the point of this board is to criticize others, but to share knowledge and help others who are interested in pursuing this lifestyle. My original posting of the beyondveg website was more out of surprise that someone would get so passionate about being anti-raw. I share an equal amount of surprise about the ferocity of feeling the anti-TB author shows. I do not agree with what Tom Billings writes, but I also know that he is entitled to his opinion. I object to his propaganda approach, but there are many worse propagandists out there for many causes. I say live and let live. OUr nation was founded on laissez faire ideals, and I wholeheartedly embrace them. Do what you want, just don't make me do it too. Enjoy your soup, I will go enjoy my smoothie, and that's about it, don't you think?

Raw Daddy -- livin' raw and lovin' it

Agreed! But virtually all people who eat a certain way - omni diet/vegeterian diet/vegan diet/rawfood diet/various permutations and combinations of these - may one day find it does not work for them anymore. Tom Billings is saying that when your diet no longer "works" for you, maybe some changes are in order. That is how I see his point of view. And, yes, a cooked food diet is poison to some. But lurching over to 100% raw for years & years and describing constant ill health as "detoxification" is dangerous, too.

It is laughable for the author of that anti-TB article to claim that Billings got sick only because he wasn't doing it "right". As an older person, I am reminded by the excuses made for the awful, repressive, murderous communist government of the ex-Soviet Union: that this wasn't TRUE communism - it just needed some a bit of fixing, then all would be Heaven on Earth. Sure!

All in all, I like your post and the way you express yourself. And while we'se talkin', would you be willing if, God forbid, your raw diet eventually makes you feel sickly, to go back to a hearty, cooked-food diet, along with animal products (non-flesh)? Or do you take the attitude that you are going to stick with rawfoodism, like a religion, come hell or high water? I think that this attitude is what Tom B. is propagandizing against. Or do you see something else here?

Enjoying this series of posts...haven't read the article yet.

What strikes me the most is that it possible is true that we have come so far from the natural world that existed--and provided--quite a while ago that we can in fact not really go back to natural existence as it was then. It makes sense, in fact, as without so within, sure we can find ourselves in natural surroundings, camp out in the woods, hang out on the beach, etc., but hardly anyone is ready to MOVE there and simply LIVE...at least not without feeling some sort of loss in some way...and yet, what a dream, imagine if one could just do that and be very happy.

One person I knew who used to be raw vegan but now is mostly raw carnivore, says that raw vegan is perfect for a perfect world, or for retreating to a cave to meditate, but that we need more "active" type energy to get certain things done, actually. Help others, not retreat.

We each have to find out for ourselves. OK, go! Let's regroup in five years. Ha haa.

One thing I find myself thinking a lot lately is that it's better to go beyond asking for knowledge and answers...because they're not enough, not at all. What is enough? What is the key...

love,
Ade

Thanks for the link, maybe one day I'll actually go to both sites and see what's what. Cheers!

"Can anyone here on this site show me someone who has been a raw-food vegan for 50 or more years - no supplements - and who is in the great state of health that the writer of the anti-Tom Billings article thinks that he himself is in? What is this man's name, and where can I see a recent photo of him? "

I know someone. My auntie Laura. Here is her photo (she is the one on the far right):




Gosia.

She's a little saggy but otherwise looks good for her age.

You sure she's never "cheated" and eaten a termite or two?

So rawgosia, is that you in the middle? ;-)

Tom Billings had an eating disorder because of his troubled past; but instead of searching his emotions and finding what (or more precisely who) was really the source of his isolation, fear, anxiety, binging, unfullfilling life and psychotic episodes, he chose instead to attack rawfoodists, vegans, and vegetarians. That is what all the negativity is; not only ignorance, but misdirected hatred. All of the information on that website is so outdated; it doesn't take into account or reflect any of updates that have happened in the raw food movement since 1970.

Wow, I just noticed, on the link refuting TB, the sentence "Computer consultant, yoga teacher, and San Francisco LiFE [a raw foods group] organizer." Is that true? Did he really organize San Francisco Life? If so, that really does make a lot of sense...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/03/2006 12:54AM by dream earth.

I read TB's entire voluminous site. I don't agree with everything on it, but I think he may be right that there really is a condition referrred to as "orthorexia". This is a mental state in which the sufferer stubbornly sticks with a diet that is obviously not suitable for him or her. For my part, I felt weak, could hardly walk, on all-raw. The desire for some cooked was too great, and that did the trick.

In theory, the arguments for all-raw sound good, almost seductive. But as someone here has already pointed out, the human race, or at least most of us, are too far gone: the cooked-food-wanting genes are predominant in most of us. But I like to read this site for lots of good tips and hints within my half 'n' half diet.

The only thing that pushes my buttons is mindless eating of flesh. That was once an animal who wanted to keep on living as much as you and I.

If I may voice my opinion:
There are 2 different points that get constantly mixed up in raw/cooked discussions:
1- the ability of humans as a species to live entirely on raw food
2- the ability of particular human individuals to adopt a raw food diet for various periods of time

IMO (after reading tons of testimonials) it is very hard and even impossible for real, concrete individuals to adopt this lifestyle. The reasons are multiple - from money and time to emotions and cravings - and it almost seems like everything is against this diet once you try it.
However, this does not prove anything for the first point, which refers to the physiology of our species. The only ultimate proof would be a wide scale experiment: take a sufficient number of people (tens of thousands maybe), of all types and feed them only raw food for the rest of their and their progeny's life. Just sit back and observe what happens. Do they die, get ill, thrive?
Of course this cannot be done and there is no animal model either (as we are the only species claimed to be dependant on cooked food). We can only speculate. My bet: humans would be just fine. At first, depending on the source of the "experimental material" (city/country people, rich/poor, etc) lots of trouble would be observed, but after a while, especially in the second generation, humans would simply live and even be much healthier than what we see today around us. It is simply clear there would be hardly any obesity, heart diseases, etc etc.

Horsea,

This is amusing, >>>the cooked-food-wanting genes are predominant in most of us>>> .
IMO is a bit risky to go so deep. Do you think there are some "McDonald-food-wanting genes", too? From the behaviour of some people probably yes...

When i started raw it was impossible for me to be 100%, too. Yet, after 1 1/2 years of transition I managed when I tried again. Could this be the trick? As David Mason usually says: just keep adding 1% at a time, at the pace you are comfortable with.

I agree with Bryan's and Dream Earth's points about the TB's fanatism. His approach to food is obviously not relaxed - at first sticking to a diet that almost kills him and then fighting against it by gathering every tiny bit of information that is remotely against it.

Very well expressed, Planta. But nobody has ever been able to tell me why, oh WHY some rawfooders are hell-bent on being not 80%, not 90%, not even 99% raw - but they feel they just have to be 100% raw or else it means something is "wrong", something is just not the way it should be. That is the equivalent of people insisting that, because the human race discovered fire and began cooking their food millenia ago, we should all now eat 100% cooked.

I have been thru some awful hard times, and now I am just so grateful for whatever food comes my way, and so far I have not had to consume any dead animals against my will - which maybe I might have to do if society totally breaks down and there is massive and widespread hunger, and all I can find is a discarded wiener in a dumpster.

So, somebody here please tell me just why you are so insistent that there is something amiss because you have not yet reached the 100% raw state. Because I just don't get it.

Yes, maybe if there was a strict law against cooking food, I imagine that over a period of time we would devolve back into eating like our apey ancestors. But it would take time and I think certain genetic types might be wiped out. Like the ones with the McDonald's-food-wanting-gene.

Horsea,

>>>So, somebody here please tell me just why you are so insistent that there is something amiss because you have not yet reached the 100% raw state. Because I just don't get it.>>>

This is a very important question that I pondered also. My thoughts:
1- let's say you are relatively happy with a 70% raw diet. This means lots of raw food, much more than the average person eats, and to me it means also the knowledge that raw food is very important and can't be substituted entirely by cooked food. OK, now let's analyze the 30% cooked part. What exactly does it bring to the body that can't be supplied by something raw? You are against animal products, so what do you consider irreplaceble in the cooked plant food?
When I followed this line of thinking I reached the conclusion it could be one of the following I was after in the cooked part:
- "calories" - meaning simply energy from the starchy stuff (mainly)
- salt - that I was not using on the raw part
- comfort - simply giving in to my body's cry for what it knew to be its' reliable food.
Knowing this, I reasoned further:
- about 600 cal are not so hard to get from raw stuff once my gut gets used to it (and indeed it's easy)
- salt is a tricky one, I can simply add it to raw food and try later to see if I can eliminate it
- comfort should simply not be the point when eating. It means either a drug-type dependancy (such as the opioid effect from grains) or some other emotional attachment to food that I don't want to have. I do not want to be dependant on any one food to the point of finding it irreplaceable. I am happy I got there eventually: for example I eat lots of bananas, but I can easily go without them if I find something else (sapote, carrots, etc). This was not the case when I was hooked on grains.

2- At one point in my transition I settled on about 80-90% raw and thought it was OK for the moment, that I couldn't do more (based on my initial experience). After a while I noticed some frustration: it was hard to find a reason to limit the cooked food intake to the 10-20% value, which led to days of 50% raw or even less. For example, if i decided I was "allowed" some bread with peanut butter, why would I stop after 1 slice and not after 2, 3 or more? I realized cooked will always be more atractive for me if i allowed it in my diet, it will always make the raw part seem less tasty. I think this is exactly the mechanism that led humans to eat almost 100% cooked.
So I decided to take a 30 days all-raw challenge to see how I stand afterwards. Surprise... I'm still 100% after more than 8 months.

3- Some ideas about raw/cooked and our food instinct in a fascinating text: [www.geocities.com]


>>> we would devolve back into eating like our apey ancestors>>>
If you put it this way, it means you think we made progress by starting to cook. I don't agree with that I'm afraid. My opinion is that cooking made possible the colonization of areas that were inaccessible otherwise, but the price we paid and are still paying is much too big.

Horsea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, maybe if there was a strict law against
> cooking food, I imagine that over a period of time
> we would devolve back into eating like our apey
> ancestors.

Don't you mean "evolve?"

Tks. for your posts, both of you. As to devolve VS evolve, well, that is something that could be discussed and debated far into the night. It is true that we are superior in some ways as a result of agriculture, cooking, and the consumption of salt (NaCl as a separate mineral, not just the organic sodium in plant foods). There are some food historians/philosophers who say that the consumption of salt, in particular, over time helped our intellect to develop. The exact mechanism I am not familiar with.

So now we have high intellectual development as compared to paleolithic peoples and whatever state of humanity preceded them. We are terribly different from the olden days, with all that intellect, and the complicated civilizations that have resulted.

However, I don't think that the cure for all the badness of advanced industrial civilization would consist of going back to the relatively halcyon days that accompanied raw foods, gathering, no salt, etc. My point - and I do have one, believe it or not - is that The Cat is Out of the Bag, or Pandora's Box has been opened, and none of this can be reversed. The omelette cannot be unscrambled. Further, some people say that the "olden days" that we are discussing here were not a Garden of Eden of Peace and Love at all, but rather a state of revolting ignorance and violence, even worse than what we have now.

I welcome your rebuttal and/or further discussion.

I tend to agree with Planta's reasoning.

On a practical level, I've often thought that perhaps the degraded soils of today are just not sufficient for someone to be on a 100% raw vegan diet and get all the necessary nutrients.

Also, today's varieties of fruit and veg are just not as nutritionally dense as the heirloom species they have been designed from.

They are also not as fresh as would be optimal, and vitamins and some nutrients degrade because of this.

However, this nutritional degradation applies to all foods, especially factory animal foods for example, since they are just fed a minerally poor diet.

Perhaps there could be some argument to support some animal food consumption from organic or wild sources, I'm not sure. Nowadays, with the vast pollution problem there exists, this kind of food could be counterproductive, providing more toxins than nutrients, perhaps.

In any case, I would argue that we have not evolved to the point where consuming any significant amounts of cooked and/or animal food is compatible with our physionomy, that is my feeling.

I agree with Planta that, in general, cooked food/agriculture/animals allowed us to migrate away from regions of the planet from which we are physiologically suited to, and that we pay too high a price for this.

Of course, on a practical level, it is inconceivable to return everyone to a near tropical habitat with plenty of fruit/veg at their disposal, so in this sense the process is irreversible, at least in the foreseeable future...

For an interesting article on how we have not "adapted" to a western style cooked diet, see [www.ajcn.org] and references therein.

Cheers,
J

I love this discussion!...hugely interesting, central


I think the solution can only be found in our hearts and in our imaginations, not in our information-gathering minds, no way!

The best way to enter into our hearts, is it to feel "satisfied" from some bread after a salad or from leaping into the state of self-denial and prayer that it might take to be comfortable with eating just natural, uncooked food...

If the soil, like our bodies, have been hurt by industrial war-like dare I say food-production, yes taking us from natural habitats one could argue to far reaches of the planet more suited for carnivores perhaps and those who can live on just grass or hibernate...maybe the world needs animal-crop rotation and humans have been in all the fields now for awhile, spoiling the rotation (ooo...) I no longer feel that four-season living is the way to go, I don't want to go through winter again...at least not without the love of others to keep me warm...

I have suffered so much for lack of support as a single mother (who hasn't), people just aren't valued much these days

what do people value

if the soil isn't rich enough and fruits have been mutated from their original form too much for us to be able to live on them like we once did, well, HELLO!!! We are already suffering with the planet. That's why it's so hard to go all raw, to become so in tune with the natural life, because it is to be crucified, at this moment, or to risk it... Turning to a portion of cooked food does not help one's "nutrition" (how could it? aside from because that's all that's available unless one's a millionaire), it just numbs you to the burning that's happening. Why jump on a drowning ship? keep a tether to the machine that's staying stable, the big burning cigarette that's ashing out the world.

It's not a mild time, my friends, it's not a tra-la-la diet to go on and chat about. Sound extremist? I'm surprised it's coming out of me...and not...

swirling miracles to you...

Bliss, what kind of support have you been missing out on for being a single mother? I am curious. I am a married mother and my experience is that the issue is not so much married VS single motherhood, but rather is she "working"? That is, is the mother working for cash outside the home, or does she work at home raising the children and managing the household? This latter being is, in our culture, the lowest of the low.

If rawfood living is the way to go, I think it should be approached most gradually. I don't think that any group of people anywhere, thousands of yeas ago, just jumped 100% from raw into cooked; from wild food into cultivated food; from no-grain to grain-centered; from hunting to animal husbandry, etc. I am sure it was 2 steps forward, and 1 step (or more) back.

I would still appreciate a firm answer as to how people in the 4-season climate make friends with where they are on this earth without adapting thru diet. Stoking up the furnace higher and higher whilst living on sprouts and other raw foods won't cut it. It just won't, for any period of time. Can you imagine the destruction of the environment necessary to provide tropical-style interior temperatures for hundreds of millions of humans living in the 4-season climate? It would be greater than the energy needed for cooking a portion of one's diet.

I don't want to deal in theoretical situations, but I do want to hear from people who thrive on a 100% raw food diet, year after year, in areas other than the tropics and subtropics. If all-raw was intended to be practiced only in warm, summer-all-the-time climates, then 100% rawfooders might want to just own up to that viewpoint.

Horsea (by the way, do you love horses and the sea?)

I am not speaking so much from the present as a single mom (live with my parents in eastern Canada and am hopefully moving out in a week with the help of "assistance" (and yes, I intend to continue being a full-time mom and finding ways to support us without having to put him in someone else's care) but of my experience post-birthing in Hawaii where I had been living for more than a year. Pregnancy made me keenly aware of all the ways in which we are NOT "in the garden" (and Hawaii was much more like the mainland than I had hoped and expected). I felt a lot of community around, a lot of parents too, but even the people I was living with didn't feel much call to help out after my birth, and after being in the hospital for two weeks following emergency surgery after paratinitis (infection spread throughout my inner cavity started in my uterus) I just felt so despondent and incredulous that I should be the only person contributing to my newborn's livelihood, partly it's that there is so little awareness of what it takes to care for an infant, and for children in general. General populace doesn't see childcare and kids are just sent off to school...

On living in a northern climate, I do live in Canada (sometimes) albeit southeastern coastal Canada, and I have not lived longterm on just raw, but I have heard/learned certain things, like some foods being more warming for winter, like cinnamon and ginger and root veggies (not tropical fruits) and warming your food like raw soups and also sprouting legumes and stuff...but I am now sorta planning on going back to Hawaii, after this trial few months living just me and baby here, still near "family"... though I am also quite interested in starting up a raw booth at the year-round "farmer's market"...

cheers Adrienne

I am sorry to hear that you have had such a tough row to hoe! (How do you like the agricultural metaphor...) When you refer to being the only one "contributing to [your] newborn's livelihood", what do you mean? Are you talking about the day-to-day physical care? Or do you mean financially?

In any case, in a decent, sane, sound society, a woman alone would be expected to do neither on her own, but to have plenty of material and practical help from those around her. Even if everyone around you was made aware of what is involved in caring for an infant does not mean that they'd all be lining up to help! But I suspect that the one or two who would help would be older women, perhaps some who have been thru the grinder yet not too bitter. It is appalling that those you were living with post-partum were uncaring. Were they younger people without children themselves? My husband never helped me hardly at all with our child - so you can see that there are no guarantees in life!

Was that a swipe at schooling? If so, there's always homeschooling, but then you need $$$ to support yourselves. I have homeschooled mine. I have a husband to support me, but life is a challenge nonetheless. The big advantage is that children homeschooled from Day One are not likely to be rebellious (in a bad way) and the bond can be quite close between parents and children.

What is a raw booth at a farmer's market all about? If this is what will turn your crank, I hope you will go for it. Same for travelling back to Hawaii with your child. By the way, how old is he/she now?

To answer your question: I am not particularly interested in horses, and I really do not want to live by the sea at all. We live in the interior of Canada. "Horsea" is one of the Pokemon characters that were popular with the little kids a few years ago. I just shut my eyes and pointed to the poster of all the little creatures and my finger landed on Horsea.

To all those reading this - sorry if I have gotten off the topic to communicate with Adrienne.

Adrienne - do you read the www.mothering.com forum? It's just the place for you!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/04/2006 09:40PM by Horsea.

Horsea,

You wrote >>>Can you imagine the destruction of the environment necessary to provide tropical-style interior temperatures for hundreds of millions of humans living in the 4-season climate?>>>
I don't quite understand what you mean. As far as I know, this heating is already going on - at least in Europe and USA. Out of 24 hours, how much time does an average person from these regions spend at temperatures of under 10 degree C (50 degree Fahrenheit)?

As to the point of how to manage the food problem for these regions, you'd be amazed at what can be acomplished when something is priority 1. As long as noone cares though, it all looks impossible.

Wow, I am impressed and amazed at the level of discourse that my original "wow, look what I found" post has started. I think that more than anything it shows that there is a broad spectrum of beliefs across which we all seem to fall. Some of us seem to be more toward the "100% raw is the only way to go and will, in the end save the earth, etc." and some seem to be more toward the "do as much as you can and as much as you want to and recognize that you are doing something both good for the earth and for yourself."

In response to Horsea's question about whether anyone in a non-tropical/subtropical climate has lived successfully on Raw for years, it seem slike we'll have to wait and see -- many people in those areas are newer to raw, especially as the ability to get fresh and delicious fruits and vegetables year-round is becoming mroe commonplace. I also tend to agree with Planta's assessment of the current heating situation -- most individuals in the colder 4-season climates alreday heat their homes to tropical and sub-tropical temperatures, even in the dead of winter. I don't think that being Raw makes a difference.

One question I pose for all of you is this: why do you all believe that the degradation of the aulity of our soil and thus the nutrients in our fruits and vegetables makes being Raw harder. The only difference I have found between being Raw and my previous vegan incarnation is that I now hae to think more creatively in preparingthe same organic fruits and vegetables I was previously eating. In fact, I would think that being Raw would allow you to even better access those limited nutrients that modern flora seem to have -- rather than cooking them to death and ingesting them at extremely high levels just to obtain some nutrition. If the debate is vegan versus animal-products, then I don't think that raw has anything to do with it. This is an honest question -- aren't all people, cooked food eaters and rawists, equally affected by the disintegrated quality of nutrients found in fruits and vegetables?

Blissmummy -- keep on fighting the fight. I think that single parents have the hardest (but likely most rewarding) battle ahead of them. Not only do you have the difficulties of parenting alone (and as a dad whose wife stays at home, I can nearly fully appreciate that), but you also have the ignorance of those who would judge you and your choices in going alone. I say forget them. You are doing what is best for your child whether you are part of a twosome or not. Parents are parents, and I truly believe that the most important thing is that we love our children and guide them well -- this world likes to beat people up, so if we arm them with the tools of self-confidence and bravery, we are arming them for happiness. It sounds, form all I have read of your posts, that this is your goal.

Thanks everyone,

Raw Daddy -- livin' raw and lovin' it

HIya Horsea, Raw Daddy :~) (and all you mysterious people outt here)

My baby (who's seven months old) is exploring laughter lately, laughing "like a fool" in most situations. It's hysterical, contagious, and so beautiful!!!! I was thinking earlier that laughter is a great thing to do, we're encouraged not to do it too much so as not to make other people feel uncomfortable, but it's like a breath of fresh air straight from the heavens, whether you're laughing out loud or watching inside.

Yeah, amazing what comes out in the course of a conversation, or series of posts...

Horsea, about "livelihood", I meant my baby's everything...a better word is "desperation" because the newborn, with such great potential and such great needs, is the be-all and end-all, and the mother just becomes this tunnel of nourishment of all forms, and if the mother suffers, the baby suffers. Never mind the mother not being able to clean herself or get enough sleep, though those things take their toll too, but just for her to feel loved, because she is the baby's love receptacle tentacle, to feel that her shredded and scrambled body and mind are not the only thing between her glorious newborn angel and the grave! Aaaaaaaag! (brief primal scream leftover, oo that felt good).

And I agree with you, that is the thing, "our society's" attitude toward parenthood and young'ns is so wayyyy off base. So devalued, the loving of a child. For osughrposh's sake!!!! (sorry, but ...oy, I'm tired, better not start swearing) Warlike society, I tell ya. All this energy put to such irrelevant planet-damaging soul-denying things, not toward Love, nope.

I agree that being a single parent or one of a pair isn't the biggest thing (going it alone is much easier than having a drag of a partner). And yes I do envision homeschooling--I knew many a bunch of parents collectively homeschooling, in Hawaii...here in Nova Scotia, too, but I just don't feel myself staying here...though who knows, and I could envision myself here for certain things...First gotta move out of my parents' house so I can hear myself clearly...and consult with babe more effectively...

I have (since deciding to go this parenting thing "alone" fears~~~about whether or not my dreams, any healthy person's dreams (not saying I"m healthy, hee ha), are possible, or if I'm headed into a storm pipe eating macaroni and cheese and working at Wendy's and getting yelled at by my kid who hates me as much as I've hated my parents and for all the same reasons. NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOO! There. (ahh.) But "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". (all this primal stuff and sleeplessness is unearthing catch phrases from my past.)

Thanks for the encouragement, "Raw Daddy" too....yes, I am so exhausted, but I feel like dancing and shouting and running...I am so depressed, and so filled with light, I am so trapped, and so rescued!!!! So depleted, and so wishing I could share my blessings with all of you.

Everyone, keep on beating in your heart! Your heart loves you...

A

It's quite amazing to live in a society where being a lawyer is more important than being a mother.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2006 10:35PM by ThomasLantern.

Bliss, you surely must know other newish mothers who are as up-and-down and borderline exhausted as you. I had virtually no help and suffered badly for years. You must somehow get some help. If you are nursing your baby (aka "breastfeeding" you need lots, and I mean LOTS, of nutrients. Twice what would sustain you before you get pregnant. I hope you won't hesitate to look into this. I did not, and had chronic fatigue for years.

When my child became a teenager, he would sometimes get ugly with me. I found that feeding him certain food supplements turned him into a nice person and he would not have those fits of nastyness. Also, a really good nutritious diet goes without saying for those rapidly-growing bodies.

Best of everything to you and do what is necessary to sustain your and your child's health at a high level.

Horsea~

well, my situation is I left my life in Hawaii unexpectedly, I hardly know anyone here and have hardly had time to phone anyone, and we live an hour away from town and the people I do know here. Once I move into town in a week, which is the plan, I'll be closer to potential mumma friends and such, but I'll also be on my own and in the city, and whatnot.

I'd love to hear more about your experiences, what you've learned from them, or what you would do differently...I do put a lot of focus on nutrition (though I turn to food for help with stress in a bad way, less and less; living with my parents doesn't help, they eat junk and are paying for my groceries and aren't very sympathetic to wanting to eat health food and supplements)

On the upside, I spoke with another girl(-woman) yesterday who would be into opening a raw food booth with me at the market, something I've been wanting to do--yay! We'll see...

I definitely see how sublime Dovelin feels when I eat all natural mostly raw and vegan, compared to ...other!!!! It's amazing, once one accepts how much of an effect food and nutrition really does have on you!!

Thank you for your caring

blessings to you!!!

love, Adrienne (and Dovelin) :~)