Er - metaphor for what, mate?
>[W]oman's autoeroticism is very different from man's. He needs an
>instrument in order to touch himself; his hand, woman's genitals,
>language--and this self-stimulation requires a minimum of activity. But a
>woman touches herself by and within herself directly, without mediation,
>and before any distinction between activity and passivity is possible. A
>woman "touches herself" constantly without anyone being able to forbid her
>to do so, for her sex is composed of two lips which embrace continually.
>Thus, within herself she is already two--but not divisible into ones--who
>stimulate each other.
I was at the supermarket earlier. Saw lots of women there. Not a one looked to be benifitting the slightest from her self-embracing lips, I'm afraid. Just as I wasn't particularly distracted by my foreskin.
> Although woman finds pleasure precisely in this incompleteness of the
>form of her sex organ,
The way Luce tells it, it sounds like a most complete little organ!
>"She" is indefinitely other in herself. That is undoubtedly the reason she
>has been called temperamental, incomprehensible, perturbed, capricious--not
>to mention her language in which "she" goes off in all directions and in
>which "he" is unable to discern the coherence of any meaning.
Making excuses for herself, I reckon. Most women I know are not particularly any of these things. Should I suspect terrible vaginal malformations? Nah - if this is the only alternative (which it ain't), I'd go for Judy every time. Comrade Luce ain't doing the sisters any favours here.
Some of this reminds me of one of Lacan's bits of nonsense - something about how a little girl sees only mystery when she looks down, whereas the little boy sees objective evidence when he does. Consequently, their pubic ontologies lead to contrasting and incommensurable epistemologies. Paglia actually thought this most compelling, as I remember.
Well, I don't. I think it's a bit of an embarrassment.
Fun to read when I should be marking, though.
Cheers, Rob.