yo whaddup rob!?
errr. just a reply to the claim the my discourses are ragged and incomplete and i guess incomprehensible.
>
>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.
>
>
>
>
>