The above picture, my reader, just sans the yellow circle which I (BMcC[18-11-46-503]) have added, was the cover photograph of The New York Times newspaper (aka: "The Gray Lady") Sunday Style section, 20 August 2023. The young woman is apparently a "popular" singer and media maven I naver heard of but that doean't prove anything since there's a lot of popular things I don't have any interest in being aware of, except the war in Ukraine.

Because it is the cover picture of the Style magazine, by simple logical deduction it must be a style or fashion statement. What is it stating? What is she stating? When I think of style and fashion, I think of something like Coco Chanel. Rich, chic, fashionable. Not my style but also for sure not posing slightly slouching on a bench press apparatus putting on a world weary face and spreading her legs as wide as possible for the camera. "The opposite of luxury is not necessarily poverty but hats and skirt lengths that go out of style." (Coco Chanel) Not thee Bauhaus but also not a lot of other things such as his young lady's crotch which are in our face (but not our beds) today.

My house would be The Bauhaus and I think Mr. Alolf Loos had the last word to say about design. Here I will leave aside Gangster Glamor including drilling holes in perfectly sound teeth for the sole reason of filling htem back up with gold and Bugatti Veyrons. Vroom! Vroom! Do I remember rightly that jus a few weeks previously The New York Times Sunday Magzaine (news not fashion!) ran a feature article on the enruding attaraction of Hip-Hop Art, like hip-hop "artists" with more heavy gold chains hanging around heir nexts than some slaves?


Non sequitur. First let me reaffirm that I am a strong supporter of health sex, for all ages: anything should be OK so long as it does not threaten to send anybody to a hospital emergaency room. Somebody once said to me tha tmen who were uncircumcised were less likely to be interested in kinky sex. I finally figured out the reason with some help from a Medieval dude named Maimonides:He recommended circumcision to diminish lust in boys. So the dults need something more than just a womsan's natural body to get it up. Which leads me o some thing tha has always repulsed me and notw hat I hink about it again my repulsiion to ie is shimilar to my repulsion to baby doos and also my omther when I wa a teenager and she was drowning her sorrows in bourbon used to go around the apartment we lived in during the day in "Babydolls" which are a kind of lingerie but no fear of incest on my part because while I had always found my parents' bodies repulsive, I certainly did not wnat to see what was under his semi-sheer silk nighttie excep like exhibis in a freak show.


Lingerie. How perverted would I have to be for that to arouse me — to use a word I prefer for reasons to be indicated forthwith: — erotically? Don't get me wrong. If persons' bodies are genuinely unattractive, they may need enhancement. But a mulitnational corporation who works out every morning CEO hiring a call girl is not that, is it? What's wrong with such a man? Maybe that he spends too much time in gender apartheide pub[l]ic nudity rooms, which are politely called: "locker rooms"? I find the lady at right a turnoff, and you, my reader?

Periodic table of the elements

I have long since learned from the people who retraded my soul and denied me "luxe, calme et volupté" (yes, I know: you can't get blood from a stone): If you don't have a better solution, don't bitch about us. I do have a better solution: left. Rational defense for alternative: This young lady looks like she has both a mind and a body (More on this below). She is apparently a physicist. Her t-shirt is soft wasm cotton. Not sateen coldness. In the Peanuts cartoons, Linus had a blanket to soote him, not a weather balloon or some other shick shink thing, right? And even the image on the t-shirt is playfully erotic: celebrating what "normal" people who get off on things like lingerie try to predend doesn't exist: menstruation. Isn't is sexy that women bleed each month?

The primal scene

Let's dig deeper. Vicorian Paterfamilias Dr. Sigmund Freud who sad that the Oedipus story showed that little boys wanted to kill their father to fuck their mothers when the story actually shows that fathers (he ws one, right) want to urder their sons to petect hteir social position as roosters of their hen houses mdash; Dr. Freud spoke about something he called "The Primal Scene", which wa apparently that a small child would be frightened by obswerving his parents having wht they pretend not to do: have sex. How could that be? A small shild proably finds everything interesting because he (she, other) has nevver seen it before. So surely he would be curious about what his parents do. But frightened? Would he be frightened to see daddy give mommy dead flowers on Mothher's Day to show her now much he commercial-advertisingly loves her? Not likely. I think what would frighten a small child is parents having rough sex.

To further cite the failed interetbrate physiologists's opinions: an untamed instinct is more something-or-other than instinct tamed by civilization. Translate: A Victorian male thrusts less violently than he otherwise would had his parents not made him ashamed of sex except in the locker room. I never had the stimina to do "the missionary position". It seems to me one should savor physical arousal. What could frighten a small child about mommy and daddy ling together and gently caressing each other?/p>

How sic is our so-called "society (and probaly mos or even all others, too)? I am not sure I can cound the wasys. Parents repress their children's sexuality. A lady flaunts her crotch in public on the cover of The Ne Oyrk Times newspaper's fashion magazing Lingerie. Circumcision. You name it somebody does it. except for maybe extrapolating a bit from the Bookd of Ecclesiates in their Bibles. Back to Dr. Freud (or as I prefer to call him: Uncle Siggy). I suspect that jocks, who are as close to untamed instincts as you will find outside street gangs, can ejaculate semen a further distance than a tantra yoga guru. Bu tthe y do it and it's over except for boasting about it.

The yoga connoisseur savors his bodily function. What makes man higher tha brutes is his enhanced temporatlity: to be more than just, literally, a flash in the pan which has no past, no future, and is gone as soon as it comes (←double meaning word there, of course). The Victorians may have repressed everything except politeness, but as Jacob Bronowski said, albeit in a slightly doffernt context, it is the hand and mind working todather which hav emede the ascent of man. Sex without self-reflection is more ephemeral than the smoke form Uncls Siggy's stogie, butsurely he puffed slowly on it to savor that physical experience for, as hiw nephew Edward Bernays, the world's first applied aychoanalysts ssid: a cigarette is more for a woman thatn just crushed tobcco in a small rolled piece of paper.

The denouement

What is excitement? Excietment is dis—traction. Ecitementt takes you away from yourself wi=hich is the only thing you can have: your self-reflective appropriation of living. Ditto Freudian sex, etc. I want a life with no excietment, which means not losing any of it: but that, of course, means tha tevery minute of every ordinary day should be desirable, and that presumably what people's daily lives are not so they want to get away from themslves but they were sticking me with it too and I didn not want any part of it but I ha no power to do anything about it (or abou them).

Connoisseurship: savoring attends oneself to onself, as much as in possible for a temporal being. Yhat in whih alone wa have ourselves ultimately takes it all away but excitement robs us of our presence. Of course things are cmplicated and the lady spreading her legs for the cover of The New York Times Style magazine has presence an oaf soccer fan does not. And maybe when she gets home and closes the door to the cameras?

+2024.02.12 v065
 PreviousReturn to Table of contents

Where deleted stuff goes....
This page has been validated as HTML 5.