Oh and I nearly forgot what I was supposed to be writing about! I said that I would lose myself in my passion for writing.
This piece is going to be a short list of sexual snippets.
1. Libby Brooks article in the Guardian in the response to the sexualisation report.
Finally, finally someone has spoken about the fact that nobody seems to have asked children about this sexualisation issue. Finally someone has mentioned that we need to actually ask ourselves what “sexualisation” means. Finally someone has considered that we still haven’t actually defined “sexual deviance”. Finally someone has stated the all too obvious fact that children are not necessarily concerned about matters of sexualisation if they haven’t got food in their mouths or clothes on their back, Playboy bunny logo or not. Finally someone has stated that with such a polarised and iniquitous society we should probably consider more pressing issues with resolutions that could really make a difference to the wellbeing of our young.
Sadly, there is still a lack of voice regarding the fact that if we talk to children and young people rather than burying our anachronistic heads in the sand, then we might, just might, prevent another generation of children making the same mistakes of ignoring their sexuality and pretending that it doesn’t exist.
Sadly, there is still a lack of voice regarding the fact that if we talk to children and young people rather than burying our anachronistic heads in the sand, then we might, just might, prevent another generation of children making the same mistakes of ignoring their sexuality and pretending that it doesn’t exist.
2. The new series of freebies from the Guardian – this one being on the World of Music.
I love these types of series but I am amazed at what they miss out as much as what they choose. The chosen genres are rock, hop-hop and R&B (why together?), indie, dance, world, folk and jazz. Anyway that is aside. The very first piece in the paper was about a night when Frank Sinatra sang in New York, documented by the photographer Weegee Fellig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weegee)
He was capturing the first mass frenzy from teenage girls hyped up to such an extent that they were nearly passing out at the mere sight of old Blue Eyes (Was he ever Young Blue Eyes?)
So here is the extract from the paper that interested me.
For Weegee, this was another example of the human extremities that he documented with his instinct for the climatic moments in New York life: what he didn't mention was the fact that, after each performance, the Paramount was drenched in urine.
“Drenched in urine” eh? Was my lover’s bed drenched in urine this week when I exploded with the full force of a woman desperate to release her passion?
Here is yet another example of us all missing the bleeding obvious. Yes, there were probably a thousand or so pairs of wet knickers in the Paramount Theatre that night, and yes, there could have been a stench of a woman’s ejections seeping into a dusty carpet that could easily have been mistaken for urine. But did anybody get down there with some sort of test to prove that it was urine rather than something else.
Here is yet another example of us all missing the bleeding obvious. Yes, there were probably a thousand or so pairs of wet knickers in the Paramount Theatre that night, and yes, there could have been a stench of a woman’s ejections seeping into a dusty carpet that could easily have been mistaken for urine. But did anybody get down there with some sort of test to prove that it was urine rather than something else.
If they had bothered to do so, perhaps they might have ascertained that this was female ejaculation which can happen with or without orgasm but is so much the better with the latter. When a girl is excited, she doesn’t piss herself. She releases excitement juices. They look, feel and erm, taste different.
If they had bothered to do this, perhaps, 67 years later, I would still not be checking the sheets to see if I had pissed myself and I would be more at ease with my delightfully excited gushes of arousal.
3. The Slut Walk
Due to unforeseen circumstances, I was unable and a little unwilling to go to the SlutWalk today in London. The unwillingness was not out of a lack of support for the event. Far from it. I really wanted to go but I just didn’t feel in the mood after the personal events of this week.
I want that word “slut” and others re-thought. I want to be positively slutty with my positive cunt all moist and ready for some serious fucking. I want the words to positively show my female sexuality rather than be used in derogatory terms. And of course, I want the general notion of women being able to wear what they want, expressing their sexuality without fear of unwanted sexual abuse to be made very clear to all concerned, and that in wearing such clothes we may well be flaunting our sexuality, we may even be asking for an excited glance but it is we that choose whether we want to fuck.
I hope it was well-supported despite its date change. I hope that women were looked at by passer’s by in a delighted way and I hope too that such passer’s by realised that it was fine for a woman to express herself sexually in this way without it being an open invitation to touch or more.
I am looking forward to scouring the Sunday newspapers tomorrow for photographs and articles to see what the awaiting world made of this event.
Apologies, readers, for not having first-hand experience but sometimes even sexual awareness has to make way for the needs of others.
4. And carefully amalgamating previous points is another article by Suzanne Moore
She is taking on the mantle established by Libby Brooks earlier in the week regarding the fact that sexualisation is not a concern when there are thousands without food and shelter. However, she goes on a slightly different stance and it is worth a read.
Understandably, she blames capitalism not necessarily sexualisation for depriving our children of their childhood. It is a vile and insipid money-making that is the real issue behind the selling of obscenely inappropriate clothes for young girls, and these capitalist bastards don’t give a damn about how horrendous it is to see a little girl dressed up in this way.
Yet once again, there are pieces of understanding that are missing.
Take this comment.
The display of naked breasts on the middle shelf thanks to Lad Mags is not nice. Don't worry – such mags are in decline anyway, and nothing in this report will challenge Page 3 or indeed the peculiar "sexualisation" of those poor Middleton sisters with their breasts, bottoms and legs now permanently on display as they lay back and think of England. Or Wales. Wherever.
Come on Suzanne! The reason Lads Mags are in decline is because any one who fancies a quick eyeful can do it at the touch of a button. The internet is full of images, moving ones too, that go well beyond the average lad mags coverage (or lack of it!). As for the Middletons – they’re just posh birds who can afford to have trim bottoms!
However, she does redeem herself later in the article with the point that ... “The viewing of porn, we are told, for instance, is addictive. What model of addiction are we using here?”
Exactly so. What are we measuring here? Has anyone actually looked into the relationship between porn and inappropriate sexual behaviour for those who merely have a healthy interest in sex? Let’s not go there right now, for I know there are plenty of reports that do link deviant behaviour with pornography but maybe the deviance was there already in such people and it not the porn that is the main provocation.
She concludes, “What is needed then is not some weird repression of sexuality or of young people, but of a rapacious capitalism that commodifies every desire and yes, will sell sex to children.”
And she too acknowledges that we shouldn’t brandish a word such as sexualisation around when we have done nothing to actually qualify, quantify or identify what this word actually means.
I also loved her comment about her daughter, her ten year old who was concerned about the word “Slut” admonishing her mother for using the word in relation to the aforementioned demonstration/walk/celebration. But at the same time, this young girl is asking what “fisting” is. And even the great liberal Ms Moore couldn’t bring herself to tell her. The child has heard it. She wants an explanation and if she doesn’t get it from her mother, she will find it elsewhere, because she can!
5. I need a fuck. I need a hug. I need a passionate kiss and a Satori sleep.
No link for that one – just thought I’d mention it!
6. Exciting news from Channel Four.
This is hopefully a preview to what Zenpuss is going to be talking about later on in the week. I am SO excited about this programme. According to the Guide in today’s paper, the first programme is going to be all about the female orgasm. I can hardly contain myself and think I might have a thorough good going over myself to prepare me for the main even on Channel 4 at 10pm on Thursday. I hope to goodness it is going to be worth the wait. I hope to goodness that I................... we’ll leave that one for now.
“Channel 4 are seasoned veterans at disguising lascivious content as sex ed, but this new three part series manages to keep the titillation/information ratio weighted narrowly in favour of the latter. The Sex Researchers opens with an episode on the female orgasm which has confounded scientific consensus for generations.(ZP -Back to what I said earlier about Frankie, peeing girls and the wet bedsheets) Victorian medical professionals were convinced that women were incapable of orgasm, leading to the populist belief that only men should enjoy sex. However, a few bold, contrarian (ZP – always contrarian when it comes to female sexuality) figures conducting some rather risqué studies, were able to prove otherwise, leading to a more enlightened, understanding of female sexuality.”
See previous writing above to appreciate how excited I am.
AND Willhelm Reich is going to get an outing on national TV at long last.
No comments:
Post a Comment