I have no idea what this is all about. A claim was made about Hegel, which was false, because I happen to have read it. What viewers of commercial hard core pornography do or do not understand may or may not be something which Yoshie knows about, directly or through citations, but I see that Hegel has vanished from the discussion. I've never been in the business of seeing, much less analyzing, cum shots. -gn
Yoshie: A close examination of pornography reveals that the Master doesn't understand it, even though he wants to. For a good example of close examinations of porn, read Linda Williams's _Hard Core: Power, Pleasure, and the Frenzy of the Visible_ (which comes with 25 illustrations). What motivates men to produce and consume the Frenzy of the Visible, for instance, of close-ups of cunts? They must think that's where IT's at (it being the Secret of the Woman--Her Being, Her Pleasure, Her Lack, Her Power, etc.). Ha, ha, ha. What of the prevalence of Money Shots, which capture cocks ejaculating outside female bodies, so male consumers may be sure that they got their money's worth--the 'climactic' moment of male sexual melodrama. Now, at least two problems arise: (1) how do straight guys relate to cocks in the picture?; and (2) how do porn producers visualize and male porn consumers confirm the 'climactic' moment of female sexuality? What do porn producers/consumers do with the probability that female pleasures and orgasms evade the visual codes of pornographic representation?
-- Gregory P. Nowell Associate Professor Department of Political Science, Milne 100 State University of New York 135 Western Ave. Albany, New York 12222
Fax 518-442-5298