Random neuron firing, lame philosophy, literary pontificating, movies, sex, clothes & other femme stuff

Monday, January 12, 2004

Why is there apparently such a limited number of sex fantasies?

Fem Dom

Friedrich, of 2Blowhards, poses the question and offers some interesting speculation.

Personally, I think the number of sex fantasies isn't really all that limited. What's limited are adults' sexual imaginations, a predictable consequence of the elaborate Chinese-foot-binding of the sexual imaginary our culture enthusiastically perpetrates on its children. Strong Imagineers (to use the Disney word) like Sade and Sacher-Masoch stand at the head of what for lack of a better word I'd call (via Wittgenstein) "forms of life," just as do Jesus, Mohammad, Marx, Freud, and Joe Weider (indeed, I'd 've put Sade [whose sexual imaginary seems quite bountiful even by today's standards], at least, into Emerson's Representative Men or Carlyle's Heroes and Hero-Worship; but that's me). There, no doubt, will be many others to come. Eh-hem.

Maybe instead of forms of life I could neologize: how about memeologies (pronounced me-me-ology to enhance not just the word's kinship to ideology but also the latent narcissism contingently embedded both in the source word meme and in the disciple's devotion to the master].

My point is that we are only gradually developing a Western ars erotica and that its development is a prerequisite to a greater elaboration of fantasy life. But I think there is progress. Just look at the usenet alt newsgroups for stuff like puffy nipples. Ten years ago, puffy-nipple-admirers didn't even know that's what they were. Now they probably have their own advocacy organization.

I can count on one hand the number of times, including today, I've used the word imaginary as a noun. At least without being obviously insincere. It just seemed right in this context.
Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Listed on BlogShares