From: "Charles Gavette" <chaosmosis-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Marriage for dummies
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 12:14:59 PST


 some are happy to be in their situation even though they hold up their 
image of domestication as some sort of fate-sign. Enjoy your symptom 
baby-tao


>From owner-deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Thu Jan 21 
07:19:29 1999
>Received: (from domo-AT-localhost) by lists.village.virginia.edu 
(8.8.5/8.6.6) id JAA27060 for deleuze-guattari-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jan 
1999 09:06:29 -0500
>X-Authentication-Warning: lists.village.virginia.edu: domo set sender 
to owner-deleuze-guattari-AT-localhost using -f
>Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.68]) by 
lists.village.virginia.edu (8.8.5/8.6.6) with ESMTP id JAA54440 for 
<deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 09:06:20 
-0500
>From: Unleesh-AT-aol.com
>Received: from Unleesh-AT-aol.com
>	by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id WXBDa03482
>	 for <deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 
09:02:11 -0500 (EST)
>Message-ID: <f496d5f2.36a73363-AT-aol.com>
>Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 09:02:11 EST
>To: deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Subject: Re: Marriage for dummies
>Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
>X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 226
>Sender: owner-deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>
>
><< Could it be because marriage involves a pledge of sexual intimacy? 
>>
>
>Not every marriage. Marriage vows can be unique to those involved. So 
there
>might be some who pledge intimacy through S&M or a fetish activity, or 
who
>agree to be married but celibate. A vowed union or an affirmed 
connection can
>potentially have many different versions. I'm suggesting that 
proliferating
>different versions might be interesting. Many people are very connected 
to
>their cat or their dog, and indeed an erotic energy is shared between 
them,
>without need of lewd commentary on whether they are actually being 
"sexual"
>with the animals or not. I know many who love their pet more than any 
other
>human.
>
>I'm suggesting we not privilege one type of human connection. That is, 
after
>all, a rather Oedipal thing to do, setting rules on which types of 
human
>connections shall be affirmed. Let the desiring-machines proliferate.
>
>(un)leash
>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com