Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 19:34:04 -0800 (PST)
From: "ROBERT C. THOMAS" <theory-AT-sfsu.edu>
Subject: Re: aesthetic bottoms


My post was only as vulgar as sex, itself, is. And once again, all of the
critical ideas contained in my two posts were completely lost on someone
who seems far more concerned with defending something called "personal
preferences" than with thinking about sex.  The intent of my post wasn't
to piss you off or to call into question your "personal preferences," but
to go beyond the very notion of "personal preferences." In other words,
the notion of an "aesthetic bottom" has nothing to do with sexual
preferences. Men who love pussy can be "aesthetic bottoms." In fact, one
could argue that the world would be a better place if more hetersexual men
chose to enter into composition with this "force." ANY ONE, with any
"personal preference" can choose to be an "aesthetic bottom." The
potential meaning of this term, as a kind of concept, is so unstable, so
relational, that even a cartoon like Homer Simpson could be described as
an "aesthetic bottom." So I don't get where this..."you don't understand
or have respect for my personal preference"  crap is coming from. I think,
perhaps, you are reading both more and less into my "vulgar"  discussion
than is actually there: more, in the sense that I am reacting against your
preference (which I am clearly *not* doing) and less, in that what I am
doing is drawing attention to critical issues of sex, desire, singularity,
passivity, and relationality. Sex *is* brutal and vulgar and talking about
it in the kind of sanitized language of heterosexist normativity is an
effort to transcend that brutality; to re-present it as something much
"safer" than it really is.

robert


On Tue, 5 Jan 1999, Bruce Hagood wrote:

> Well, I expected an overrreaction and I got it.  I'll excuse your vulgarity for you:
> I most certainly did NOT mean to even imply that vulgar expression which you repeated
> several times.  You are telling us all much more about yourself than about me.
> 
> Take my words at face value and be glad that we are all live and let live on this
> list.  I have no desire to tell anyone else what do with their private lives.  Do
> whatever you want in the privacy of your own home; I could care less!  As long as you
> don't knowingly hurt anyone else through your actions, nobody should/could find fault
> with you.
> 
> But in stating my personal preferences, I didn't intend any harm.
> 
>        BH
> 
> ROBERT C. THOMAS wrote:
> 
> > This is really disturbing. I posted something that was simultaneously
> > funny, alive, and critical about the potential meaning of "aesthetic
> > bottoms." Two of the three responses have said nothing more than, "I love
> > pussy." It's great that you love pussy, but what does that have to do with
> > what I wrote? And why did you feel the need to send a message to the list
> > telling everyone on it that you love pussy? I'd really like to know. From
> > where I stand, this appears to be a strange, creepy, and subtle form of
> > homophobia. Call me naive, but I didn't expect this kind of defensive
> > response from male heterosexuals. It must really touch a chord in you to
> > respond like this, especially given the fact that you prefaced your
> > response by the following: "I'd rather talk to a beautiful woman about the
> > meaning of life." In a very subtle way, your comment equates normative
> > male hetersexuality with "all" sex. According to the twisted logic of
> > heterosexist normativity, sex is not about sex but "the meaning of life"
> > and beauty resides in "the everlasting possession of the good" (Plato,
> > Symposium) through a union of two incomplete parts that make a (w)hole
> > (ibid). The defense against the fetishization or better yet, the
> > singularization of buttholes in my post is obviated in your choice of
> > words. I suppose that when you are talking about the "meaning of life"
> > with a beautiful woman that you aren't fantasizing about what you want to
> > do to and with her various holes? In the end, what is so disturbing about
> > your post is that you can't even allow yourself to say "I love pussy."
> > Instead, you have to hind behind some kind of bullshit like "beauty" and
> > "the meaning of life." Finding beauty and the meaning of life in the
> > encounter between mouth and pussy (preferably while you are tied-up,
> > helpless, and the twat is being shoved in your face), is probably more
> > than you can bear. Too bad for you.
> >
> > On Tue, 5 Jan 1999, Bruce Hagood wrote:
> >
> > > I'd rather talk to an attractive woman about the meaning of life, than fantasize
> > > about a "rosey" butthole.  It's a personal problem, I guess.  Oh well...  :)
> > >
> > > A. Sarah Hreha wrote:
> > >
> > > > At 06:11 AM 1/1/99 -0600, you wrote:
> > > > >Well, the list may or may not be bored.  But I can think of other ways--much
> > > > >better ones--to stave off boredom!   They tend to involve women.  :)
> > > >
> > > > In what do they involve women?
> > > >
> > > > *~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*
> > > > A. Sarah Hreha
> > > > Dept of Spanish and Portuguese
> > > > University of Minnesota
> > > > *~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*
> > > >
> > > >   "En un momento dado me detuve
> > > >    a fumar un cigarrillo y a pensar.
> > > >    Ese fue mi error."  Sergi Puertas
> > >
> > >
> 
>