![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Mar. 8th, 2001 12:22 pmStill at 800 words, but the good news is I'm not drugged up any more. Spending Monday night, all of Tuesday, and most of Wednesday in a Benadryl-induced haze was not how I intended to spend my week. I can come up with ideas while I'm on depressants (antihistamines work like that for me), but I can't get anything on paper. This doubtless explains why I don't write well drunk, either.
On the other hand, I did get a lot of sewing done. Colin and I are going to a convention in Mississippi in about a week and a half, and the wrongheaded idea of the month is, we're dressing up in plug suits from Neon Genesis Evangelion. Which meant that last night, I got to go over to Batty's and learn how to make fitted cups for my suit.
Now for something I did today. This is an excerpt from a discussion about Michel Foucault on the Del Rey Online Writing Workshop's mailing list:
> His "Repressive Hypothesis" points out that the growing popularity
> of discourse about sexuality since the late Victorian era actually
> had the reverse effect--he describes it as an attempt by
> established authorities to control sensual impulses by abstracting
> them into language, dissecting them, defining them, segmenting them
> into clinical geometries, and obviating real-world varieties of
> sexual expression by leaving them out of the conceptual box in
> discourse. He describes this phenomenon as "The Perverse
> Implantation."
And yet people still fuck. People fuck in all kinds of ways, from bland to exotic, and it doesn't look like people are going to stop fucking any time soon. People also definitely talk about fucking an awful lot more than they used to. We have entire movies and TV series that are all about fucking. We go out to nightclubs, dance in enticing ways, then go home and fuck. We go out to restaurants and treat our dates to rich, sensuous foods if our goal for that night is to fuck. We talk about fucking on the bus and at the water cooler, at home with friends and on the Internet with strangers. There is a lot of discourse about fucking, but there's a whole lot of fucking going on too. The contraceptive industry is nowhere near going out of business.
It's hard to look at a phrase like "obviating real-world varieties of sexual expression by leaving them out of the conceptual box in discourse" without giggling. Breaking it down into clearer syntax, what you're saying is "Authorities leave real-world varieties of sexual expression out of the discourses they have." And that just makes no sense to me. Do researchers really talk about the "average fuck" as some sort of abstraction? I haven't read Masters and Johnson, though _Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Sex (But Were Afraid to Ask)_ certainly talks about people as individuals with their own individual fucking experiences. The media certainly doesn't present abstract images of fucking -- instead, what we get are specific stories about individuals who meet, get to know one another more or less, and may or may not end up fucking; what the individual viewer takes away from the experience depends on that person's reaction to, whether they do or don't identify with, those fuckers on the screen.
On the other hand, I did get a lot of sewing done. Colin and I are going to a convention in Mississippi in about a week and a half, and the wrongheaded idea of the month is, we're dressing up in plug suits from Neon Genesis Evangelion. Which meant that last night, I got to go over to Batty's and learn how to make fitted cups for my suit.
Now for something I did today. This is an excerpt from a discussion about Michel Foucault on the Del Rey Online Writing Workshop's mailing list:
> His "Repressive Hypothesis" points out that the growing popularity
> of discourse about sexuality since the late Victorian era actually
> had the reverse effect--he describes it as an attempt by
> established authorities to control sensual impulses by abstracting
> them into language, dissecting them, defining them, segmenting them
> into clinical geometries, and obviating real-world varieties of
> sexual expression by leaving them out of the conceptual box in
> discourse. He describes this phenomenon as "The Perverse
> Implantation."
And yet people still fuck. People fuck in all kinds of ways, from bland to exotic, and it doesn't look like people are going to stop fucking any time soon. People also definitely talk about fucking an awful lot more than they used to. We have entire movies and TV series that are all about fucking. We go out to nightclubs, dance in enticing ways, then go home and fuck. We go out to restaurants and treat our dates to rich, sensuous foods if our goal for that night is to fuck. We talk about fucking on the bus and at the water cooler, at home with friends and on the Internet with strangers. There is a lot of discourse about fucking, but there's a whole lot of fucking going on too. The contraceptive industry is nowhere near going out of business.
It's hard to look at a phrase like "obviating real-world varieties of sexual expression by leaving them out of the conceptual box in discourse" without giggling. Breaking it down into clearer syntax, what you're saying is "Authorities leave real-world varieties of sexual expression out of the discourses they have." And that just makes no sense to me. Do researchers really talk about the "average fuck" as some sort of abstraction? I haven't read Masters and Johnson, though _Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Sex (But Were Afraid to Ask)_ certainly talks about people as individuals with their own individual fucking experiences. The media certainly doesn't present abstract images of fucking -- instead, what we get are specific stories about individuals who meet, get to know one another more or less, and may or may not end up fucking; what the individual viewer takes away from the experience depends on that person's reaction to, whether they do or don't identify with, those fuckers on the screen.