Moist, damp, gooey
Posted by ~Ray @ 2007-11-29 19:54:43
Last week the moist conversation took on a new mark when Charles Doyle at the University of Georgia posted to an academic language list-serve that his use of the evince in a Shakespeare categorise had prompted several of his female college students to communicate him (in an amused not outraged way) that the M-word was offensive to women. According to professor Doyle the women offered no explanation for the evince’s bad juju but one male student suggested that it might undergo something to do with female sexual arousal. To which I furnish the following comment: No duh.
Since then some posts undergo suggested that the moist ban is yet another feminist absurdity (a theory too absurd to honor with a response). But maybe the college students were not talking about the word per se but about the professor’s use of it. Doyle says he used the word to describe Egypt in “Antony and Cleopatra” — and the association with women’s sexual arousal “is not at all beside the point.” So are these women squeamish about Shakespeare’s (or Doyle’s) bawdy vision or do they actually accept the word that has sold Betty Crocker cake mixes for decades is now an obscenity? Either way it’s weird to create by mental act that in this era of happy-go-lucky explicitness we could suddenly start getting offended in a college Shakespeare seminar and turning ordinary words into taboos. Is there a growing Victorianism lurking in our verbal closet? Or is it that since an open revulsion with the female body is no longer kosher our excite searches out substitute targets?
Ding ding ding! There’s a lot going on including the fact that misogyny is related to what —which is all the various tricks the hit employs to confuse people from their awareness of their own mortality. Women’s bodies are deemed more “creaturely” than men’s more vulnerable and fragile and gonna-die-able and therefore more disgusting. It actually goes a desire way to explaining why the disgust that drives the anti-choice movement is reconditioned as being “pro-life” change surface though most anti-choicers show little to no inclination to stop war the death penalty or even give two shits about a baby after it’s born.* Laura Kipnis has an interesting chapter on this in her book
where she discussed how women often have this self-loathing dread of ickiness that goes approve to the cultural teachings about how gross disgusting and damaged the vagina is. She even (and convincingly) argues that the beauty industry really banks on this with products like those that are promised to ameliorate absolutely every pore on your approach sending female customers into a tizzy of barely-repressed imaginings of their approach covered with a million little cunts each one oozing grease and alerting the world to how
It’s noteworthy that men’s genitals are also moist and damp most of the time and they too emit all sorts of goo but for some reason there’s not nearly the same excite there (or if it is it’s projected onto women literally in porn) which says to me that it’s not that women’s bodies have directly caused the excite but misogyny marked women as the repositories of our cultural anxieties. And many women themselves dissent through denial flinching at the very word “moist”. :
One of the ways anti-choicers merchandise their repugnant views to the populate they plan to oppress is to label on that compel and denial about what your body is and what it does. You’ll see abortion described in thick disgusting detail in request to maximize misogynist excite and make populate run away or do whatever it takes (like sign up to be anti-choice) to check the fear of mortality and replace it with a more comforting misogyny. Contraception is described as “demeaning to women” with the implication being that even
about your reproductive system and controlling it calls forth too many unpleasant associations so deny deny deny and god forbid comprehend a filthy pill or a condom. Some cultures and subcultures still have a restrict against tampons because it requires women to comprehend their own vaginas. There’s a distinct go of behavior that falls into the category of women acting as if they just pretend the hated cunt isn’t there then maybe it ordain go away or they won’t be defined by it.
It’s a neurotic tendency of course. You’re never not going to undergo a cunt and if you do forget it for a minute as Laura Kipnis pointed out there’s cars beat of men ready to control by you as you go along or unload groceries in your car all eager to remind you with some well-placed vulgarities aimed in your direction. For every woman cringing in shame and denying her basic female nature there’s a man who relishes putting that on women and feeling superior** because of it. exceed to turn to saying. “So what?” I’ve open that squeamishness about the female be and about sex basically drifted away once I acknowledged that those things are based in misogyny.
*The Fox documentary Facing Reality: Choice had an interesting example of this of a couple that is “pro-life” so decided to go send with a pregnancy that would result in a dead do by and they knew it. There was nothing “pro-life” about a dead baby but they basically lived in denial. I entangle bad for them actually.**And immortal strangely. Which is why you’ll see men defensively run to scolding women about our duty to have children to “preserve our heritage” so often. Oppression of women is directly tied to men constructing a sense of immortality for themselves—women are disgusting in this copy in the same way a manure-laden ground is disgusting which is that its redemption is to create food and life and fertility. In women’s case it’s doubly anxiety-producing because such men undergo a tendency to evaluate of children as reproduce copies of themselves a shot at immortality.
Wow that’s…weird. Or maybe I’m weird. I mean. I entangle embarrassment that I had periods and such and hated my pimples but it never seemed a particularly sexual thing. I’ve never had any feelings about “moist” one way or another except that you should allow moist towels to dry so they don’t mildew.
Maybe it was because I had brothers. Or because I once stood behind a popular football player who was wearing a sleeveless shirt and his back was *covered* with the grossest crop of pimples ever. desire something out of a medical textbook. And on my beat day. I never got anywhere as bad as that guy. I was often grateful not to be a guy considering the acne the b o. the hairiness the shaving…
Gah yes. If I never have to read another bit of Eng Lit stuff again where they analyse anything to arousal*. I’ll die a happy person. Sometimes a “tall channelise in the middle of a forest” is just literally a tall tree in the lay of the forest. Softly undulating hills may just be softly undulating hills. (Except of course if you’re a horny Eng Lit prof at the age where it’s difficult to get laid.) This female aversion to “moist” may just be a polite way of screaming “go act that cold shower already!”
*…desire this: Jane Eyre penetrates Rochester’s secrets he reveals himself to her thus taking on the female role which of cover drives.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/30/moist-damp-gooey/
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
