i had this conversation 'bout pr0n...

i'm revisiting this conversation i had back in october with a girl. it was part of an open email list and i won't bother to repeat the entire thing, but there's a bit i wrote that i wanted to keep public because i have the same fucking conversation, it seems, all the time. so here we go:

Not even the Bonobo or the dolphin really have a corner on the influences of sex on human activity, precisely because it's been demonstrated, for those of us who remember Fr. M. Sherwin's Fundamental Moral Theology course, that "the language of love" is one of those Kantian intuitions that we manifest linguistically and sexually in every synaptic connection.

i have no frelling idea what that means. did you actually use the term "Kantian"? is this a late one-page reaction piece for a "core" class you were forced to take? because it seems, um, tortured. to death.

i declare the aforementioned statement to be excused for nonrationality. and nonlinguisticity.

So, given a loyal adherence to that belief, Renee reading lesbian erotica becomes, not a moral issue, nor an expression of her lifestyle, but rather an admission of the nature of language and sexuality.

i fail to see how that first clause relates because we have declared the aforementioned to be written while very drunk and/or stoned. which is maintained through the course of the sentence.

Also not statistical, therefore not scientific, but rather anecdotal, is my experience having lived in a number of lesbian communities in my short tenure among other human beings. It is my experience with women, that pornography is of no interest to them, and is distinctly unattractive to them/us.

jesus, where have you been living, the michigan wimmin's festival? i've lived with piles an' piles of dykes and never have experienced this. my lesbian aunt? my college roomies? my after-college roomies? my (ex-)girlfriends? my friends? they have a variety of preferences but i never met a girl didn't like pictures. heck, in the above category are any number of lesbian photographers who shoot naked pics of women. i've even modeled for them.

one could argue that, for example, some take offense at the crass, male-oriented pr0n. like me. this has more to do with teased hair, miserable-looking women and long nails - can you imagine having sex with a women with long nails? terrifying thought. girls, if you want to bag the babe, CUT YOUR NAILS. might as well be edward scissorhands when you get near the delicate bits.

but pr0n in general? hell, no. straight girls like pr0n. bisexual girls like pr0n. lesbian girls like pr0n. transgender girls like pr0n.

Calling my "erotic" fiction and poetry porn is expressed ignorance of its content and intent.

there is something wrong with your sentence because i don't know why you use the verb "to be". how about just saying 'Calling my "erotic" fiction and poetry porn expresses ignorance of its content and intent'?

...and calling it "erotic" doesn't change its essential nature except in your own mind. what, exactly, is your content and intent if not to arouse and tittilate? which, i believe, is the intent of pr0n?

wikipedia comments, "It has been said, euphemistically, 'The difference between erotica and pornography is simple. Erotica is what I like; pornography is what you like, you pervert!'"

boy, have i experienced *that* throughout my life. i'm tired of being called a perv because i like pictures of women. i like them to be not exploited and not underage, but that's not the only thing out there, you know.

John Lennon made a good point to say that "woman is the nigger of the world." There is a world-wide, millenia-long trade in human beings as sexual objects among men in this world. Women do not kidnap and use other human beings as chattel, and never have done. There also exists a world-wide, centuries-long industry of pornography among men, but one suspects its duration to be so recent and short, only because Deguerre's invention (sic) was not that long ago. (I just noticed for the first time how interesting his name is,) [editor's note: she clearly meant the Basque inventor Daguerre.]

ah. now here we can agree - partially, anyway. here's what is true: the use of persons as chattel, as slaves, as objects to be used, sexually and commercially and in practically every example of human life, is nearly universal. it also usually centers on women. as a poster i have says so eloquently, "the normal state of being for a girl in america is exploited." i fervently agree with this sentiment. when predation on the weak happens, women generally bear the brunt, though other kinds of people do as well - children, those perceived to break sexual taboos like gay/bi men, and transfolk of all flavours.

as for the industry, i doubt it is new. dating back to the earliest moments of human creativity are sexual images intended to arouse. greek statuary wasn't chaste, it was hot. chapbooks circulated from the invention of printing both east and west showing sexual pictures - and many of them were intended for women. ancient egypt had endless supplies of papyrus books intended for female readers, and they all were chock-full of pictures and sexy stories. and the palaeolithic is, as far as the archaeological record shows, all dildoes and carved images, usually combined into one. i doubt all of these were used by men - they got the former built in. sex-pictures on the dildo - nice use of limited materials.

there is a prudence in the modern world that tries to steal one leg of humanity from the tripod that keeps people alive. the legs are food, community and sex. we blacklist sex, bracket and deny it, but it is as much a necessity as human contact and the regular intake of food and water for existence.

Some version of liberation from this labyrinthine struggle is the lesbian forum. Women who are interested in relationships of depth, and solutions that speak to that depth, often turn, even surreptitiously, to stories of relationships between women. It is a demanding culture, that rejects superficiality out of hand, so its representative genre
of literature is just as demanding. The relationships must express the complexity of desire and the satisfaction of resolution that this intelligent, savvy community experiences.

it sounds suspiciously like you are trying to say that lesbian relationships are superior. ha. "demands superficiality out of hand?" are you serious? have you ever been in a lesbian relationship? you sound like a fanboy writing from the same Heathcliffean handbook! relationships are relationships; proclivities dictate our partners but they are still just human beings. we got one-night stands, girls that go to girl-only lap-dancing clubs, sexual abuse, rape, partner abuse, and the general mass confusion and idiocy associated with all human romantic & sexual relationships. and few of them answer to committees that check this happens "appropriately".

in fact, that last sentence really irks me. "The relationships must express the complexity of desire and the satisfaction of resolution that this intelligent, savvy community experiences." are you frelling serious? or just a virgin?

It is an exercise in character development that Ayn Rand only dreamt of, given especially her own demonstrably narcissistic thinking.

yes, ayn rand was a stockholm-syndrome jew who manifested nazi ideas of perfection. she also constantly engaged in activities she railed against - relying on others to get her asylum and citizenship and work, denying her own origins and self, & cetera. she was a wanker, and if you are constructing randian dykefests, i'm sorry for your partners.

There is not one pornographic image in anything I've ever written, and I defy you to find it.

ooh, it hurts to get called out, doesn't it?

How can you say you know me, and in the same breath accuse me, as such? You sound like the seminary gossips, who were women, by the way, who accused me of being "after" every man on the block, when nothing could have been further from my desire or practice.

yes, you have experienced perhaps that women are not perfect, then? that we enforce strict codes of conduct on ourselves and cast out those who don't adhere to community norms? it's like high school: the boys beat each other into submission and the women do so with words and ostracisation. i'm not sure which is more brutal, to be honest, and your notion that lesbians exist in a community free from this kind of activity disturbs me.

This does not make me want to couple up with a woman, but rather makes me simply unavailable.

the only thing that makes you want to be with chix is wanting to be with chix. it's that simple. as my male friend said to another who denied he was gay, "the only requirement for being a homo is wanting to suck dick." desire is the definition of sexuality, not action.

Aquinas reminds us that the power of sex is a gift from God.

incidentally, might i add that aquinas was also a wanker and a self-loathing ass?

celibacy is certainly fine, but the reasons many people engage in it are only rationalised by long speeches.

you want celibacy, take it. you want to write about women 'erotically', do it. you want to be a man-hater, do it. but really. you expect people aren't going to suspect you might be looking at tits when you think no one is looking when you do all three?

maybe you aren't interested, but you have to admit you are kind of the definition of a closet case, at least in the eyes of the beholders. so consider that before railing against your friend, who might be trying to pry open your iron-hard shell of self-protection. s/he knows you better than i do, and yet ironically is trying to get you to admit your desire. maybe there's something there or maybe she's nuts - but s/he does know you.

either way, your choice of a public venue to vent against her is intriguing to me. why the public statement?