You Ate WHAT?!

While writing my previous post I stumbled across an article entitled "Oh. Wow. Turning placenta into pills for new moms [video]" The part that most terrified me was "[video]." My god...what terrors might be in store for me... But I knew I had to write about this bizarre practice on my blog, so, all for the sake of journalism (blogism?).

Well, I had no idea. The terrors are boundless. There is no end to the traumatizing information available online regarding the ingestion of placenta. Did you know there is actually a term for it? "Placentophagy: the act of mammals eating the placenta of their young after childbirth." However, the picture on the Wikipedia page is a goat. Not a human.

The links that I turned up by simply searching for "eating placenta" were mind-boggling.

Now, if I separate the science part of my brain (however small) from the part of my brain that contains emotions and reactions, I can admit that this is somewhat fascinating. The fact that whatever is contained in that goopy mass of cells could be some sort of magical elixir to ward off postpartum depression, stimulate mammary glands, and contribute to the overall health of a mother after giving birth is pretty incredible.

That said, take a freaking vitamin! Don't bake placenta loaf--good god! If scientists can harness the power of the sun and offer us a tasty little vitamin D tablet, I'm sure they can figure out some sort of post-natal vitamin that is much more palatable.

And, like the writer of the initial article I encountered said, "be forewarned: Once you see a real, live cooked placenta, you cannot unknow it." Needless to say, this did not get me any more excited about viewing the video... But, there's a blog to write, so I press on.

I think the only thing that got me through this experience was the fact that the writer of my main source, Placenta, It's What's For Dinner was hilarious. (Thank you Joel Stein and Time Magazine) And every bit as skeptical and creeped out as I was. I should have just stayed with this article because in an article on momlogic.com, I encountered a super disturbing quote: "It's a good 6 lbs of meat that's just chock full of lingering blood, vitamins, and hormones that can still in part be transferred upon eating."

I'm not sure which part of that was worse for me. The word "meat" or the word "lingering." *shudder*

Long story short, this is just another reason I plan to keep my uterus baby-free. I do not want to be infected with whatever crazy hormone it is that causes women to fry up their own organs and eat them with noodles (Yeah, that happened. I saw the picture. My gag reflex is still going...)

Here are the links that traumatized me, in the event that you would like to know more about this strange phenomenon. But remember, curiosity killed the appetite.

Links about placenta eating and such

Placenta, It's What's For Dinner

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1908442,00.html

"I Ate My Baby's Placenta"

http://www.momlogic.com/2009/04/i_ate_the_placenta.php

including this disturbing quote:

"It's a good 6 lbs of meat that's just chock full of lingering blood, vitamins, and hormones that can still in part be transferred upon eating"

"Five Things You Never Thought to Do With Placenta"

http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/parenting/five-things-you-never-thought-to-do-with-placenta-147572/;_ylt=AquU9L_X4FrrlbgSL_ZtVGN8bqU5

Oh. Wow. Turning Placenta Into Pills

http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/parenting/oh-wow-turning-placenta-into-pills-for-new-moms-video-2514761/;_ylt=AqogYvySBZz7QzNLvWsooR58bqU5

Baby or Non-Baby?

I read an interesting article on Yahoo today about how some businesses are catering to the kid-free crowd by banning kids from certain sections of some establishments and how this "kid-free" crowd could be the new niche market for travel industries.

Malaysia Airlines banned babies from many first class flights, some movie theaters only allow children under the age of 6 on "baby days," and McDain's restaurant in Pittsburgh banned children under 6 altogether. As you can imagine, this new practice is rather controversial.

However, it may come as no surprise to you that I am totally on board with this idea. If I had money, I'd offer a little bit extra to be in first class if I knew it would only be occupied by people who weren't going to pee their pants (hopefully). There are designated play areas for children, there should be designated "play areas" for adults as well. I would certainly get some stares if I ran onto the playground, commandeered the yellow twisty slide, and hurled fistfuls of sand at passersby. Why is it any more acceptable that toddlers hurl fistfuls of spaghetti noodles at unsuspecting adults in dining establishments? I know, I know--adults should know better than to throw sand at strangers. Well, toddlers should be learning this too.

Nothing ruins a quiet, romantic evening out like some diaper-bottomed Napoleon with his bread stick bayonette and mustache of strained peas.

Or the incessant vibrations of tiny, overpriced baby shoes kicking the back of your seat in a theater. And you just know those Sour Patch Kids are going to end up in your hair.

One of the reasons I do not want children of my own is because I have less than zero patience for loud, sticky, persistent misbehavior. So the thought of paying good money to endure this from children (whom I have no authority to reprimand) is enough to make me stay home and bite the bullet of the Netflix price increase.

Now, I'm not saying that babies should never be allowed anywhere. That's absurd and unfair. And even someone like me can acknowledge that, occasionally, children are cute. (There was this little boy--maybe 7--at Blue Man Group a few rows behind us and he had the most adorable and genuine, heart-felt belly laugh whenever they did something remotely snicker-worthy. So cute, but even that got old after an hour...) I'm just saying that, I wouldn't mind if my movie theater offered certain "adult-only" showings of popular movies. Or if restaurants offered "baby" and "non-baby" sections so patrons can decide whether or not they want to endure second-hand baby with their dinner. It's not like they're banning toddlers from Disney World. And, if we're all being honest, are Mom and Dad really enjoying each other's company when Junior won't stop sticking vegetables up his nose?

Check out a hilarious article about this new practice by TIME Magazine writer (and father) Joel Stein: "Baby on Board"

Procreation as an Elective

It is not a requirement to get your Feminine Degree or your Religion Degree or your Certificate of Heart Authenticity. It's an elective course. One that may enhance the education of some but would be useless or even detrimental to others.

For example, I would never have survived organic chemistry. It would have caused me hours of pain and suffering with little if any positive outcome. And it is a complete departure from what I want to do with my life. However, my education would not have been the same without the course I took on the author Fyodor Dostoevsky. And your brain might be swelling just thinking about that. Each to their own.

** WARNING: The rest of this message is pretty long and slightly preachy. Read with caution and an open mind. Thank you. :) **

One argument that I encounter quite frequently (from Christians) is "well, what about that part in the Bible that says be fruitful and multiply?"

This is what they're talking about:

King James Bible
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:28)


New Living Translation
Then God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground." (Genesis 1:28)


Some people read this as a command. A moral imperative to go out there and get busy.

I have three responses to that (not even touching the idea that the first chapter of Genesis is more parable--and closely resembles the Babylonian creation myth--than actual account of a 7-day creation. I'm just leaving that one alone for now):

1.) I think (when I think about it at all) that this actually is more like permission or opportunity. At this point in the story, humans and animals are basically on the same plane. God just made them, they're all hanging out as peers and God is saying, "Alright humans, I'm endowing you with superiority. So, you're in charge of the animals. I'm done making stuff now, feel free to fill the earth with more of yourselves." I do not believe that it was his intention to forcibly fill the uterus of every female. (Wouldn't that negate the whole free will thing that we also claim?) And what of women who are biologically unable to reproduce? Does this interpretation consider them some sort of cursed failure?

2.) If we are looking at the New Living Translation that reads "fill the earth" and if we do read it as a command...well, check. Done. The earth is full. Full to bursting, even. According to the US Census website that displays the US & World Population Clock, there are an estimated 6,926,060,337 people on the planet right now. That's a number we didn't even learn to read until like 5th grade. According to an article in the NY Times published in July of 2010, there are 267 people being born every minute and 108 dying. I'd say we're covered in the "fill the earth" department. I'll save my rant about the decline in resources for another post. This statistic, for now, is merely to show that there is no shortage of babies just because there is not one in my body.

I appreciate this quote that I came across while reading about the issue:

"As a human species, we are successfully filling the earth. I don't think every individual has the responsibility to reproduce, because God hasn't given every individual the capacity to reproduce, or the desire. Humans are all responsible for fruitfulness. The context of the scripture in the creation account is about being fruitful, multiplying, subduing, and caring for the earth. We can express fruitfulness through responsibility, care, and stewardship for all of creation, which includes our biological children as well as all other children and all other parts of creation."

Jenell Williams Paris, professor of anthropology, Messiah College (This was in a collection of quotes compiled at Christianity Today.com)

3.) I have read articles about this passage that discuss it in terms of mathematics. At the time this was written, the idea of "multiplication" as we know it did not exist. When it was translated years and years later, perhaps "multiply" was the closest thing they could come up with and now we get all hung up on it. Perhaps it was more of a general idea of increase: sure, increase in number, but also in understanding, responsibility, compassion, influence, etc.

Another quote I could appreciate from the aforementioned compilation was this:

"There is a population and resource issue, and the best way to love our children and to love the future's children and to love, really, all people, or all children, will be to limit our family size … . I love bringing babies into families. But there may be a higher calling, now that we have been fruitful and multiplied as a species, to think about limiting our families. We've tended to think, as Christians, we need to have children because that brings more Christians into the world. But it may not be the best way to love our neighbor. I think it's difficult for us to think outside our little circle and say, 'Well, I've got enough to feed my children,' and not really think about the impact of the resource use on children in Africa, who are also Christian."

Lisa Graham McMinn, professor of sociology, George Fox University

If I had to choose, I would pick the King James translation of this passage. The phrase "replenish the earth" seems to suggest global responsibility. The need to care for our environment so it can continue to sustain us. And compulsive procreation does not seem like the most responsible option. Don't get me wrong, people can have kids--if they want them. But what I would love to see is that it is not expected of everyone. That the decision not to have children may be considered just as valid as the decision to procreate (I enjoy the term "spawn" :) but it tends to ruffle feathers and is not very productive in fostering an adult conversation about this).

Bedtime Stories

I actually have very fond memories of bedtime stories with my mom and my little brother. The three of us would pile onto Michael's bed and choose our favorite story from Grimm's Fairy Tales or she would read Gregory the Terrible Eater (an adorable goat who only wants to eat healthy foods instead of garbage and his family just cannot seem to understand him) or The House that Jack Built. And my mother is, hands down, the best story teller. Ever. She did the best voices and when there were scary parts she'd grab our arm or leg to startle us. Or when there was a spider in the story she would tickle us mercilessly. She's more animated than many cartoon characters. It was always an adventure.

These were often very sweet times, but the truth of the matter is, she was exhausted! We would chide her for skipping pages, elbow her in the ribs when she dozed off, and always always beg for more. We always needed a bedtime snack. We were always thirsty. We always needed one more song or story. And she was so obliging. I would not be nearly as sweet-spirited about demands like this on my life. I like my sleep.

My friend Brianna posted a link on her Facebook page to the greatest story book ever written (at first as a joke) by Adam Mansbach and illustrated by Ricardo Cortes. It is called Go the F--k to Sleep. This is what I would read to my children. And that is another reason I'm not having any. Because while this is a humorous bedtime story joke for grown-ups, I'm not kidding. (Ok, so maybe I wouldn't actually read it to them, but I would think it. All the time.) Check out the audio of Samuel L. Jackson reading the book. Or, for an international flare, listen to Werner Herzog read. Priceless.

This page is probably my absolute favorite:

Father's Day

Father's Day seemed like an excellent occasion to update my blog since I'm pretty sure I got my fear of children (at least in part) from my father. We drove him crazy. Every repetitive act of infancy was like a jackhammer to his grey matter. And the older I get, the more I feel his pain.

I would like to confront the accusation that the lack of any desire to be a parent is somehow selfish. No one would call you selfish for not wanting to have a dog or a cat. And children are basically high-stakes permanent pets with fine motor skills. Some people just have an aversion to things. It is not selfish to dislike peas or Brussels sprouts (Just learned how to spell that...did anyone else know it was plural? Or proper? Never really thought about it I guess. Anyway...). Some people aren't naturally inclined to things. It is not selfish to not take piano lessons or not play the cello.

On the contrary, often the reasons for reproduction can be much more self-serving than the decision to keep our genes to ourselves. We want someone to take care of us when we're older. Someone to be just like us! To mow our lawns and wash our dishes. We want someone to love us unconditionally. Something to spice up our stagnant marriage. We want someone to have the opportunities that we were never afforded--this sounds noble enough--but often that leads to living vicariously and unhealthily through our offspring. Treating them as our second chance at life rather than separate, individual humans with their own hopes and dreams.

That's all I have for today. Happy Father's day, folks. Do what you do...

Baby Blindness

Babies cause their parents to go blind. At least temporarily.

I mean, that must be the case for all of these parents to claim that their newly emerged spawn is the most adorable creature on the planet when the rest of us see a naked mole rat in a soggy diaper.
Maybe that's just me...? But you have to admit, just because it's small does not always mean it's cute. And it's kind of hard for me to hide my disappointed birthday present face sometimes...so I plan to never be that close to a freshly hatched human. It's best for everyone if I give it at least a few weeks to cute up before I visit. Thank you in advance for your understanding.

Infantium Enigmaticum

Babies are an absolute enigma. They cry and cry and you never know what's wrong with them. And they refuse to tell you. Some people say that a mother's ear keenly recognizes the cries of her own young. On one hand I think that's possibly bullshit...and on the other hand, she ought to--she has to listen to it often enough.

Maybe the kid just watched a romantic comedy, read a Nicholas Sparks book, or parted ways with a lover... Or maybe they have a steamy surprise for you in their diaper and you just aren't unwrapping it fast enough to suit them. There could be an alien living in their stomach and devouring their vital organs for all we know! And I'm pretty sure your HMO won't cover that.

Munchers

Babies gnaw on everything.

Your fingers, your furniture, your face...

They're like puppies that you're not allowed to swat with newspapers.

In my living room, this would quickly give a child tetanus or rubella or something from all of the thrift furniture the kid could sink his or her teeth into. In a more affluent American living room this would run up a hefty bill and a full punch-card from frequent trips to Pottery Barn.

Either way sounds dangerous and frustrating. Though at least Pottery Barn may give you a discount for all that loyalty. Or possibly a complimentary pillow sham...

Just not quite worth it.

Placenta.

Nuff said.