Showing posts with label semen more specifically. Show all posts
Showing posts with label semen more specifically. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Craft over content

For one of my craft seminars when I was in graduate school, I had to read Alessandro Baricco's little novela, Silk. It's supposed to be quite erotic. It was the concensus in our class, however, that the "steamier" passages are rendered rather comically. Part of comedy arises out the fact that in the English translation, all references to the penis are euphemised with the word "organ." As in, "I run my hand the length of your... organ." Or "Oh, baby, I want your... organ inside me." OK, I don't have the book in front of me as I'm writing this, and no, those aren't direct quotations, but you get the picture: "organ" isn't a very sexy word, no matter how you manipulate said "organ." Especially when the word's repeated 40 some odd times within an 8-page spread. It also doesn't much help that the plot of the book is roughly analogous to the narrative structure of The Pina Colada Song. It turns out it WAS his own lovely lady in the end! Go figure.

This past weekend, I watched a newish film adaptation of the book, starring Keira Knightly and Michael Pitt. It's pretty much a snoozefest. And that's a shame. As expected, the film suffers from some of the same issues of fetishization of Eastern culture as the book does. But also, all the dirty stuff is completely edited out and sanitized. As such, it becomes a trite period-piece mushfest. Puke. It seems like such a waste of hot actors. Expecially Michael Pitt, who doesn't often shy away from sexual exposition within his films-- like The Dreamers, for instance, or Hedwig and the Angry Inch (arguably the BEST musical film ever made. No, not arguably. THE best. Hands down.)

I bring up this book/film now because I'm recalling that it prompted a classroom discussion about whether or not erotic writing was dead-- whether or not any of us are capable of writing anything that's both well-crafted and actually hot in an age when most of the language we use to describe such acts no longer scandalizes anyone, as it's all become part of the casual discourse. My professor, the illustrious Jane Miller, opined that maybe no one since Anais Nin has been able to do it well. Now, I've read some Nin... I'm not all that convinced that SHE did it terribly well either. Frankly, her literary sex is altogether too flowery for my taste. It's not comical in the way that Baricco's is, but I don't think it's all that hot either.

Maybe it's that I like my sex writing to be simpler, franker, unflourished. This is why I admire the work of sex worker/blogger debauchette -- to whom I have been referring an awful lot lately. Her prose is spare, clean and dirty. It gets down to business. For this, I admire it. I think it's better writing than the more purplish stylings of Chelsea G. over on Pretty Dumb Things, though I quite like Chelsea's feminist stance on pretty much everything. Here's an article that seems to agree with me about overwrought-ness in erotic writing. And poet Dan Chiasson says some similar stuff here in the NYT Book Review, though his argument more pertains to the problems of anthologizing poetry. Anyway--ultimately, I guess I hold this preference dear because prettily written sex scenes ring false in my ear. Sex is messy and sweaty and grunty and sometimes bloody. When it's really good, it isn't sweet at all. What's the point in dressing it in frilly underpants when all you really wanna do is rip 'em off in the first 5 minutes?

Sex writing should always go commando.

Below, you shall find an example of really in-your-face erotic poetry. It was written in 1948. It's a shame I'm going back 60 years to find something so audacious. But what really gets me about the poem below isn't its unadorned brashness of subject matter. It's not that it's graphic as all get-out (though, it is).

It's that Auden's mastery of internal rhyme is totally hypnotizing. Seriously-- pay attention to it. It's not easy to do what he does. It's such a careful craft--funny and rhythmic with its precision of cadence. Poetry's so fucking good. He could have written this poem about rinsing dog poo off his shoes in a mud puddle and it still would've been hot. Skillful articulation is just plain sexy. This is not debatable.

Bon appetite, mes amours!




The Platonic Blow
W. H. Auden

It was a spring day, a day for a lay, when the air
Smelled like a locker-room, a day to blow or get blown;
Returning from lunch I turned my corner and there
On a near-by stoop I saw him standing alone.

I glanced as I advanced. The clean white T-shirt outlined
A forceful torso, the light-blue denims divulged
Much. I observed the snug curves where they hugged the behind,
I watched the crotch where the cloth intriguingly bulged.

Our eyes met. I felt sick. My knees turned weak.
I couldn't move. I didn't know what to say.
In a blur I heard words, myself like a stranger speak
"Will you come to my room?" Then a husky voice, "O.K."

I produced some beer and we talked. Like a little boy
He told me his story. Present address: next door.
Half Polish, half Irish. The youngest. From Illinois.
Profession: mechanic. Name: Bud. Age: twenty-four.

He put down his glass and stretched his bare arms along
The back of my sofa. The afternoon sunlight struck
The blond hairs on the wrist near my head. His chin was strong.
His mouth sucky. I could hardly believe my luck.

And here he was sitting beside me, legs apart.
I could bear it no longer. I touched the inside of his thigh.
His reply was to move closer. I trembled, my heart
Thumped and jumped as my fingers went to his fly.

I opened a gap in the flap. I went in there.
I sought for a slit in the gripper shorts that had charge
Of the basket I asked for. I came to warm flesh then to hair.
I went on. I found what I hoped. I groped. It was large.

He responded to my fondling in a charming, disarming way:
Without a word he unbuckled his belt while I felt.
And lolled back, stretching his legs. His pants fell away.
Carefully drawing it out, I beheld what I held.

The circumcised head was a work of mastercraft
With perfectly beveled rim of unusual weight
And the friendliest red. Even relaxed, the shaft
Was of noble dimensions with the wrinkles that indicate

Singular powers of extension. For a second or two,
It lay there inert, then suddenly stirred in my hand,
Then paused as if frightened or doubtful of what to do.
And then with a violent jerk began to expand.

By soundless bounds it extended and distended, by quick
Great leaps it rose, it flushed, it rushed to its full size.
Nearly nine inches long and three inches thick,
A royal column, ineffably solemn and wise.

I tested its length and strength with a manual squeeze.
I bunched my fingers and twirled them about the knob.
I stroked it from top to bottom. I got on my knees.
I lowered my head. I opened my mouth for the job.

But he pushed me gently away. He bent down. He unlaced
His shoes. He removed his socks. Stood up. Shed
His pants altogether. Muscles in arms and waist
Rippled as he whipped his T-shirt over his head.

I scanned his tan, enjoyed the contrast of brown
Trunk against white shorts taut around small
Hips. With a dig and a wriggle he peeled them down.
I tore off my clothes. He faced me, smiling. I saw all.

The gorgeous organ stood stiffly and straightly out
With a slight flare upwards. At each beat of his heart it threw
An odd little nod my way. From the slot of the spout
Exuded a drop of transparent viscous goo.

The lair of hair was fair, the grove of a young man,
A tangle of curls and whorls, luxuriant but couth.
Except for a spur of golden hairs that fan
To the neat navel, the rest of the belly was smooth.

Well hung, slung from the fork of the muscular legs,
The firm vase of his sperm, like a bulging pear,
Cradling its handsome glands, two herculean eggs,
Swung as he came towards me, shameless, bare.

We aligned mouths. We entwined. All act was clutch,
All fact contact, the attack and the interlock
Of tongues, the charms of arms. I shook at the touch
Of his fresh flesh, I rocked at the shock of his cock.

Straddling my legs a little I inserted his divine
Person between and closed on it tight as I could.
The upright warmth of his belly lay all along mine.
Nude, glued together for a minute, we stood.

I stroked the lobes of his ears, the back of his head
And the broad shoulders. I took bold hold of the compact
Globes of his bottom. We tottered. He fell on the bed.
Lips parted, eyes closed, he lay there, ripe for the act.

Mad to be had, to be felt and smelled. My lips
Explored the adorable masculine tits. My eyes
Assessed the chest. I caressed the athletic hips
And the slim limbs. I approved the grooves of the thighs.

I hugged, I snuggled into an armpit. I sniffed
The subtle whiff of its tuft. I lapped up the taste
Of its hot hollow. My fingers began to drift
On a trek of inspection, a leisurely tour of the waist.

Downward in narrowing circles they playfully strayed.
Encroached on his privates like poachers, approached the prick,
But teasingly swerved, retreated from meeting. It betrayed
Its pleading need by a pretty imploring kick.

"Shall I rim you?" I whispered. He shifted his limbs in assent.
Turned on his side and opened his legs, let me pass
To the dark parts behind. I kissed as I went
The great thick cord that ran back from his balls to his arse.

Prying the buttocks aside, I nosed my way in
Down the shaggy slopes. I came to the puckered goal.
It was quick to my licking. He pressed his crotch to my chin.
His thighs squirmed as my tongue wormed in his hole.

His sensations yearned for consummation. He untucked
His legs and lay panting, hot as a teen-age boy.
Naked, enlarged, charged, aching to get sucked,
Clawing the sheet, all his pores open to joy.

I inspected his erection. I surveyed his parts with a stare
From scrotum level. Sighting along the underside
Of his cock, I looked through the forest of pubic hair
To the range of the chest beyond rising lofty and wide.

I admired the texture, the delicate wrinkles and the neat
Sutures of the capacious bag. I adored the grace
Of the male genitalia. I raised the delicious meat
Up to my mouth, brought the face of its hard-on to my face.

Slipping my lips round the Byzantine dome of the head,
With the tip of my tongue I caressed the sensitive groove.
He thrilled to the trill. "That's lovely!" he hoarsely said.
"Go on! Go on!" Very slowly I started to move.

Gently, intently, I slid to the massive base
Of his tower of power, paused there a moment down
In the warm moist thicket, then began to retrace
Inch by inch the smooth way to the throbbing crown.

Indwelling excitements swelled at delights to come
As I descended and ascended those thick distended walls.
I grasped his root between left forefinger and thumb
And with my right hand tickled his heavy voluminous balls.

I plunged with a rhythmical lunge steady and slow,
And at every stroke made a corkscrew roll with my tongue.
His soul reeled in the feeling. He whimpered "Oh!"
As I tongued and squeezed and rolled and tickled and swung.

Then I pressed on the spot where the groin is joined to the cock,
Slipped a finger into his arse and massaged him from inside.
The secret sluices of his juices began to unlock.
He melted into what he felt. "O Jesus!" he cried.

Waves of immeasurable pleasures mounted his member in quick
Spasms. I lay still in the notch of his crotch inhaling his sweat.
His ring convulsed round my finger. Into me, rich and thick,
His hot spunk spouted in gouts, spurted in jet after jet.

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

I DO care enough to hit send!

This is SO much better than Hallmark. God bless all that is snarkilicious in the world.


Here are some favorites (or, rather, ones for whom I can think of exceedingly appropriate recipients):














The internet is so good to me.


And an extra-special thanks to Laura for cluing me into this delicious resource for (in)appropriate cards for every occasion. So, Laura is also so good to me.

Thursday, December 13, 2007

sex-positive feminism, my life in emails, and other lighter notes

After that last dreary post, I figure I'd better sop up the mess with something more entertaining.

So, it seems, my new hero, Chelsea G. has gotten it right again. I think I'm just going to have to start linking her virtually every time she posts some darling little nugget of cultural commentary. Today, for example, I think all audiences should check out this post. She makes a millions points more illustratively than I ever have, so, mostly I'll let her speak for herself.

But, just because I'd like to back up her argument with a case in point, I'm now going to include a real-live email thread that occurred between myself and a friend of mine a couple of weeks ago.

Disclaimers:
Please note: All names have been changed to protect those who've already been completely defiled--uh, I mean, to protect the innocent. (Admittedly, I am one of the participants in the ensuing conversation, but I figure it's best to refer, henceforth, to the two of us as "Gossipy Bitch 1" and "Gossipy Bitch 2." And heretofore, I shall refrain from distinguishing one from the other.)

Please also note: Because myself and certain others who participate in my social circle have been embracing our CSS (see post from a couple weeks ago) status as of late, this thread has a distinct anti-breeder bias. Hey, we're cranky and we're spinsters. What do you want from us?

And now...

"my psyche might implode: an email dalliance"

GB1: "Dude" across the hall from me is back in the office for the first time since his wife had twins. I don't know if I can handle overhearing the proud-father-baby-excitement discussions all day long.

GB2: I am so sorry for you. I don't think I could handle it.

GB1: Oh, dear god. It's all men, too! It's all these men, coming in and sharing their own baby stories. I really think I'm going to lose my mind.

GB2: Too bad you can't close your door. Maybe [I should travel to your neighborhood and] we could just have some more of our inappropriate conversations so they can see what they are missing out on...great sex or babies. Tough choice.

GB1: Really, you should come over and I'll say, "so, last night so-and-so came over and I let him cum all over my bare chest." And you say, "yeah, I love when that happens. I'm sure glad I'm not married! I hear married men don't really even like blowjobs anymore." And I'll say, "I hear that too! Isn't that strange??" And then you say, "I'm sure glad I haven't had any babies because my ass looks friggin' fantastic today." And I'll say, "yeah, mine too. I just feel so bad for women who've destroyed their bodies with all that breeding. It must suck to be a mom. Not to mention all the cleaning up of puke and intellectual bankruptcy."

Let's create a real grass-is-greener-on-the-single-side sensibility around here!

GB2: And I'll say, "yeah the bare chest is good, but I like it even better on my face." And you say, "yeah that's good but not as good as giving blowjobs." And I'll say "yeah, I hear women stop giving them when they get married. I'm glad I'm not married. I love giving them." And you'll say "I also hear women's bodies stretch out, ahem, down there, after giving birth." And I'll say "I'm glad I do my Kegels!"

GB1: And who gets to deliver a poetic monologue on how fabulous semen tastes? Me, oh, let it be me!

OH, my god. That is SO much better than the "what kind of antibacterial hand sanitizer do YOU use? I mean, my kids ARE preemies, after all..." conversation!

GB2: An "Ode to Semen"? As you do.

You mean you don't want to hear about dirty diapers?

GB1: Nope. Already have, though. Including the "how do you keep the boys from pissing in your face during diaper changes" Q&A session. Since when did men become such effin' mother hens????

GB2: Uh, you hold it down (that's what she said). Even I know that, and I was adept at avoiding changing my nephew's diaper when he was a baby.


Fin



Enjoy!

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Giving Head

Yeah, I'm really gonna title a post like that. Isn't it about time I dedicate a post to talking about it?

So, I recently finished reading Lisa Jean Moore's Sperm Counts: Overcome by Man's Most Precious Fluid. For those who haven't seen its cover flashed over every bookish rag in the land, it's a feminist scholarly work that explores the sociological semiotics of semen (Jesus. That might be my new favorite alliteration). And quite frankly, I think it's a lame-ass book. But I'll get to why I think that in a minute.

Yesterday, I found Camille Paglia's review of several gender-studies books-- ones that, in particular, finally get around to talking about the male side of the gender-studies coin. And really, it's true. Scholarly works that specifically privilege the male experience are few and far between these days. Also true, it's nice that there's plenty of room in the discourse for non-white, non-male, non-hetero perspectives now, but you know what? Hetero men didn't exactly stop being interesting-- at least, not altogether. So, the other two books that Paglia discusses sound like fun reads to a big ol' gender-issues nerd like me, but for once, I'm going to withhold opinions about stuff I haven't read.

I will say, however, that while Paglia's review of Sperm Counts isn't altogether favorable, I think she's still far too kind. For one thing, Paglia praised Moore for her accessible, engaging tone throughout most of the book, and criticizes her for her for slipping into the ever-suspect language of the academy every now and again. About that, I would say that, when Moore speaks Academic-ese, she's pedantic, repetitive and patronizing to her readers, in that she feels like she has to define every last goddamn term. Even ones that have entered the common parlance. It's dreadful. But, in my opinion, when she's chipper, "humorous," and accessible, well, she doesn't, ultimately, have much to say beyond parroting the well-trodden party line of middle-aged feminists across the land. Basically, Moore's more of a researcher than she is a writer. Paglia's definition of lively does not seem to sync up with my own, let's say.

Paglia also points out that Moore relies on a particular brand of paleo-feminism that claims it's a man's world after all, and that women are still mere victims of the paradigm of objectification. Yawn, yawn, yawn! How many time have I said this? I'm sick to death of being told that the world is out to get me because I don't have a dick (and, in this case, because my body doesn't make semen). OK, OK, OK--I know I've ranted about that point ad nauseum already. I don't need to do it again.

But there's something else a little funny in the subtext of the book that just rubs me the wrong way. Moore announces pretty early on that she's a lesbian who has been on the board of some big sperm bank for umpteen years and that both of her daughters were conceived via donor sperm with the help of a turkey baster. So, that's her stake in the (oh, forgive me-- I'm not usually a rhymey kinda girl, but this one's irresistible) jizz-biz. But that's the extent of it. Although she spends a chapter discussing money shots and all cum-related niche-market porn, and another discussing sex workers and their precautions against a potentially bio-toxic substance, she never really gets around to discussing the complicated and layered relationship hetero, non-prostitute, non-pornstar women have with semen.

Much in the way it would behoove your average straight guy to get over any squeamishness he may feel towards menstrual blood pretty early on in his sexual narrative, it seems to me that it's also in the best interest of a woman with any investment at all in heterosexual behavior to relinquish her grossed-out-edness at semen. Because, after all, no one wants to feel that his or her lover finds him or her icky. And yet, straight girl/sperm relations remain complex, even for the most sexually blasé among us. Were a glob of the stuff to, say, land in a girl's hair, would she feel more triumphant that she'd been the cause and catalyst of such an event, or would she feel more degraded because it's hard not to find the excesses of someone else's body on your person without feeling little sullied? Some combination of the two? A more vicarious experience of pleasure? Or something else entirely? Though I'm finding it rather un-nameable, the mixture of attitudes that one who does not create semen might have about having a man come on her, in her, or inside her mouth can only ever be fairly multifarious. And this is the real emotional resonance of the female feeling regarding sperm that I think Moore misses.

She describes smells-- chiefly unpleasant ones ("bleach, household cleaner, or swimming pool water"). For the record, I deem all these inaccurate descriptors, as they all seem to be lacking the notable animal-scent that I think most often predominates. Also, I find it slightly ironic that these are chemical scents, rather than mammalian ones, when Moore spends so much of the book attempting to demystify, normalize (and also de-anthropomorphize) assorted conceptualizations of semen. How does equating the stuff with all the things under the kitchen sink on which a parent might stick a Mr. Yuck sticker demystify or normalize any damn thing? And then she recalls her partner saying, "This stuff smells gross, " upon their first turkey baster moment. I'm not saying it's the loveliest fragrance around, but c'mon, my lesbian sisters! It's not that bad!

Later, in discussing cum shots in porn, she says, "Women appear to be insatiable and competitive about their desire for ingesting the semen as they rush to get to the ejaculating penis, the full shot glass, or the residual ejaculate on a sheet. What does it mean to see women completely overcome with their desire to drink semen? To smear it all over their bodies? What does this say about male desire and masculinity?" And while it's often true that, in the fantasy-world of Porn Land, female desire for men is, ahem, overblown (it's a show, people! Porn's not supposed to look like real life!), she answers her own rhetorical questions by getting bogged down in a bunch of stuff about how the celebrations of semen in porn are pointedly ignoring the bio-toxic aspect (in the age of HIV) thereof, and are therefore titillating. But this is missing the point. She does manage to concede that "it is perhaps more accurate to theorize that men, both as spectators and actors, want women to want their semen" while she is discusses porn actresses' apparent pleasure at all this swallowing-and-smearing business, but what DOES it say about male desire and masculinity? And more relevant yet, what does it say about female desire?

She never does get around to admitting that, outside of porn films, female desire for men can be very real. And sometimes that means not minding if you get a little on you. And sometimes it even means appreciating the vicarious thrill of feeling it hit the back of your throat (my, I AM feeling brave and confessional tonight, aren't I?). So, I suppose that what I think is missing from this book is this: if one doesn't have an investment in willing, causing, and/or enjoying male pleasure, a feminist exploration of the physical evidence of that pleasure feels quite impoverished. Quite frankly, it's the least sexy book about a very sexy topic that a person could dream up. I can't help but feel like that's because, to Moore, semen really is nothing beyond an X or a Y chromosome, nothing beyond a fluid composed of "prostoglandin, fructose, and fatty acids"-- and that, somehow, a lingering neo-puritanical gross-out factor clings to it. Now, I don't mean to imply that I feel the stuff should be treated as though it were a veritable god-ish nector, worthy of idolatry, but we cannot go around behaving as though it's a)by definition, some sort of HIV-ridden venom, b) something about which we should only have a clinical interest, or c) something ooky on which only someone flagrant and shameless as a pornstar could get off.

When am I gonna find a feminist who not only doesn't make the assumption that "we live in a male-dominated world where most men have more power than most women, and where having a penis and producing sperm is valued" (she really does deliver this tried-and-true paleo-feminist aphorism-- I'm not contesting that it's, on some level, weight-bearing, but it just smacks of self-fulfilling prophecy in such a way that its very admission in such a text pisses me off!), but also at least tries to understand what women stand to gain by forming political, sexual, interpersonal alliances with men? And what we stand to gain by sucking one off every now and again? Surely, there's something in it for us. Right?