Nobody likes to be watched. Ok, the voyeur is a special case. And s/he only likes to be watched under specific circumstances--and ones under her control. No one likes to be watched outside these self-named parameters.
That is the idea behind Jeremy Bentham's ingenious prison: the panopticon. Here prisoners live in a circle of cells around a central watchtower where guards watch them day or night--or pretend to. It amounts to the same thing. Fiendishly brilliant. They're never alone or at least feel that way. And modify their behavior accordingly. First the external conscience of the guard. Then it becomes a part of the prisoner and he guards himself.
Michel Foucault took the panopticon as a central point in his study of the dark side of prison reform. His main argument being that the apparent humanism of modern penal logic moved from marking the body with torture to marking the soul with surveillance. Think about it. Which is worse? Physical pain or mental? Hmmm...?
In any case, the panopticon is a major point in Foucault's argument about the disciplinary technologies that modernity introduced. Not so pleasant. Not so humane. The body is free because the soul is caged. And worse, it is imprisoned in bonds of its own making.
Foucault states that 'the major effect of the Panopticon [is] to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power. So to arrange things that the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action; that the perfection of power should tend to render its actual exercise unnecessary; that this architectural apparatus should be a machine for creating and sustaining a power relation independent of the person who exercises it; in short, that the inmates should be caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the bearers (Discipline and Punish, p. 201).' And the Panopticon is 'polyvalent in its applications; it serves to reform prisoners, but also to treat patients, to instruct schoolchildren, to confine the insane, to supervise workers, to put beggars and idlers to work. It is a type of location of bodies in space, of hierarchical organization, of dispositon of centres and channels of power, of definition of the instruments and modes of intervention of power, which can be implemented in hospitals, workshops, schools, prisons (Discipline and Punish, p. 205).' Or on the streets, we might add--and then everywhere!
Camille del Toro further modernizes Foucault's argument. He applies this logic to the electronic bracelet: 'Two of the principles Foucault saw embodied by the Panopticon also apply to the electronic bracelet. First, the asymmetrical relationship that allows the watcher see the watched without being seen. Second, the internalization of the mechanism of control by the prisoner, making him "the principle of his own subjection." "The individual subjected to a field of visibility, and who is aware of it, himself becomes the agent of the constraints placed upon him by power--he spontaneously applies them to his own person (Coming of Age...p. 44)."'
Electronic bracelets are so 1990s. The surveillance tools of the state have expanded significantly. Now the state can seriously watch without being seen; and it wants to extend its invisible omniscience. We have cctv everywhere; police filming is ubiquitous. Add to that state after state's attempt to control the internet, social media and cellphones; their desire to monitor all internet and other communications; their use of warrantless eavesdropping and other searches; and their secret gathering and perusing of internet records. And SOPA will only expand this power.
The Panopticon is becoming the whole world. Right now, you may be watched as you read this post. Who knows what attracts their attention? Who knows who they are?
But if you aren't doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide? Right?
Who knows? That is the uncertainty and the anxiety that helps the Panopticon discipline us. We know we aren't doing anything wrong but because we fear we're being watched, we feel guilty and uncomfortable. We don't like that. We want it to stop. So what do we do? Self-censorship. Self-discipline. We avoid anything that might attract the watchers.
Liberal democracy is ultimately about crowd control. Glenn Greenwald points out that the purpose of the brutal suppression of the Occupy Movement in the USA is to send signals to the rest of us. To frighten us. And keep us safe at home. On paper, you have the right to protest. In practice, if you use it you will be beaten and pepper-sprayed and otherwise tortured. But you are free to be subjected to police torment. If you wish to exercise your right to protest, that is the price. Are you willing?
The Sauron eye of the watchers has the same chilling effect on free speech. Yes, on paper you have the right to say whatever you want but remember we will be watching you. And who knows when we're watching. And who knows when you'll say something bad. Bad enough that we can do something about it. So maybe you should watch what you say. Get your inner watcher watching for us. Then we won't need the truncheons and the tear gas and the pepper spray and the rubber bullets.
Be a good prole and stay at home. We'll keep you safe. We'll watch you.
But who will watch the watchers? Why, we will watch them...?
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
The US of Everywhere
With apologies to JRR Tolkein:
One state to rule them all.
One state to find them.
One state to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them.
The USA has learned nothing from overreaching itself in either Iraq, Afghanistan or subprime mortgages. While it careens from one self-inflicted catastrophe to another like a mad scientist, the architects of mass suicide in Congress are planning to take over the world.
In SOPA, the USA essentially declares the world's internets within its jurisdiction. And in the NDFAA the evil geniuses intend to make the whole globe a 'battlefield', including the USA.
Oh America, have you learned nothing from the epic of Sauron? And if you don't have time for that long long book at least watch Pinky and the Brain.
One state to rule them all.
One state to find them.
One state to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them.
The USA has learned nothing from overreaching itself in either Iraq, Afghanistan or subprime mortgages. While it careens from one self-inflicted catastrophe to another like a mad scientist, the architects of mass suicide in Congress are planning to take over the world.
In SOPA, the USA essentially declares the world's internets within its jurisdiction. And in the NDFAA the evil geniuses intend to make the whole globe a 'battlefield', including the USA.
Oh America, have you learned nothing from the epic of Sauron? And if you don't have time for that long long book at least watch Pinky and the Brain.
Dr. Seuss spookified
When I was a child, Dr. Seuss wasn't all about rhymes and good times. No. Some of his stories creeped me out.
That one about the green pants with nobody inside them. Sure. In the end it all worked out. But for a while there 'What Was I Scared Of?' was exactly what I was scared of.
And that zug under the rug. Shivers and shudders. I can deal with a wocket in my pocket but not that!!!
But those were childhood chills and thrills. If you want a really spooky Dr. Seuss, look what happens when he meets Cthulhu:
Just brilliant. Who would have thought that Dr. Seuss and H. P. Lovecraft made a perfect combo?
Read on, gothlings!
That one about the green pants with nobody inside them. Sure. In the end it all worked out. But for a while there 'What Was I Scared Of?' was exactly what I was scared of.
And that zug under the rug. Shivers and shudders. I can deal with a wocket in my pocket but not that!!!
But those were childhood chills and thrills. If you want a really spooky Dr. Seuss, look what happens when he meets Cthulhu:
 |
| Source: drfaustusau.deviantart.com |
Just brilliant. Who would have thought that Dr. Seuss and H. P. Lovecraft made a perfect combo?
Read on, gothlings!
When one just isn't enough
Now, I can understand why someone would want to have more than one sex partner but more than one spouse...? But when is a personal preference just a personal preference and not an act of gender oppression?
The BC Supreme Court recently ruled that Canada's law against polygamy is constitutional. It stands and polygamy is still illegal in Canada...for now...Which is bad news for Bountiful and other practicioners of polygyny. Because that's really what we're talking about here. Nobody's out there stumping for polyandry.
Yes, the defenders say they are. The Dargers--the polygamous couple interviewed in the link above--defend 'polyamorous relationships' in general. Riiiiiight. Fundamentalist Mormons are really into polymorphous perversity. We all know that's a slick argument targeted to us secular equal opportunists.
And the Dargers do a good job of defending polygamy. They hit all the right talking points. Child brides aren't religion, they're pedophilia. Abuse is abuse but polygamy is not inherently abusive. Illegalizing it drives it underground where abuse can't be stopped.
Are they right? If we did legalize polygamy, would that address the issues that the majority of Canadians have a problem with? Would women then freely choose to become wife number 2 or 3 or 4 or...?
The BC Supreme Court recently ruled that Canada's law against polygamy is constitutional. It stands and polygamy is still illegal in Canada...for now...Which is bad news for Bountiful and other practicioners of polygyny. Because that's really what we're talking about here. Nobody's out there stumping for polyandry.
Yes, the defenders say they are. The Dargers--the polygamous couple interviewed in the link above--defend 'polyamorous relationships' in general. Riiiiiight. Fundamentalist Mormons are really into polymorphous perversity. We all know that's a slick argument targeted to us secular equal opportunists.
And the Dargers do a good job of defending polygamy. They hit all the right talking points. Child brides aren't religion, they're pedophilia. Abuse is abuse but polygamy is not inherently abusive. Illegalizing it drives it underground where abuse can't be stopped.
Are they right? If we did legalize polygamy, would that address the issues that the majority of Canadians have a problem with? Would women then freely choose to become wife number 2 or 3 or 4 or...?
Evil psych and women's body type
The title's a little misleading. Unfortunately, this post is not about the psychology of evil. No, it's about evolutionary psychology and its stubborn adherence to female body type fundamentalism. In a way, I guess it is about evil psychology. And psychology is soooo evil! Don't get me started.
The short and the not so sweet of it is--evolutionary psychology tells us that men are attracted to a specific waist to hip ratio or in science jargon: WHR. Apparently, we can mathematically measure the size of WHR which turns men into drooling horny idiots. Now, women might sneerily argue--and many men would probably agree--that it is relatively easy to calculate this WHR since it is practically any size (I'll get back to this point in a moment here). But if you are interested in the technical details and the specs and blueprints, please go here.
Seriously, I don't understand how this bullshit gets taken seriously. All joking aside, I know that men are attracted to all female body types. And I don't mean this in a crude men will hump anything warm, wet and furry kind of sense. But in the more clearly obvious sense to anyone who isn't a dumbass scientichian obsessed with the ideal, perfect and untouchable female form.
Men who like having sex with women are sexually attracted to all kinds of different female body types. It's not just that men are opportunistic about coupling--some are, yes. There's as much variation in men's turn ons as there is in women's bodies. Some men like muscular women, some thin, some thick, some tall, some short, some stocky...etc. etc. etc.
Yes, some girls are bigger than others. And there is a man for that. Or a woman.
The short and the not so sweet of it is--evolutionary psychology tells us that men are attracted to a specific waist to hip ratio or in science jargon: WHR. Apparently, we can mathematically measure the size of WHR which turns men into drooling horny idiots. Now, women might sneerily argue--and many men would probably agree--that it is relatively easy to calculate this WHR since it is practically any size (I'll get back to this point in a moment here). But if you are interested in the technical details and the specs and blueprints, please go here.
Seriously, I don't understand how this bullshit gets taken seriously. All joking aside, I know that men are attracted to all female body types. And I don't mean this in a crude men will hump anything warm, wet and furry kind of sense. But in the more clearly obvious sense to anyone who isn't a dumbass scientichian obsessed with the ideal, perfect and untouchable female form.
Men who like having sex with women are sexually attracted to all kinds of different female body types. It's not just that men are opportunistic about coupling--some are, yes. There's as much variation in men's turn ons as there is in women's bodies. Some men like muscular women, some thin, some thick, some tall, some short, some stocky...etc. etc. etc.
Yes, some girls are bigger than others. And there is a man for that. Or a woman.
Monday, November 28, 2011
This Xmas give the gift of teenage angst
Ah, the Smiths. I would have never made it through high school without them. After all, everybody has to live their life and god knows I had to live mine. If there is any more exquisite torment than reading Sylvia Plath while listening to Meat is Murder, I don't want to know about it. Pure bliss. Pure. Bliss. Yes, in the midst of life we are in death etc etc etc etc etc...
This Xmas, you can experience all the sweet torture of adolescence all over again. The Smiths Complete box set has just been released in time to help your loved ones endure the holidays because you know life is so long when you're down wind.
Have a witchy winter, gothlings!
This Xmas, you can experience all the sweet torture of adolescence all over again. The Smiths Complete box set has just been released in time to help your loved ones endure the holidays because you know life is so long when you're down wind.
Have a witchy winter, gothlings!
Victorian dadism: Exhibits A B C D E F G...
Ever wonder what Victorian dadism looks like. Why yes, it does look a little bit like Miss Emilie Autumn. A kind of sinister playfulness undermining the good order of crumpets and tea and Queen and country.
Artist Travis Louie turns the Victorian world upside down and inside out in his own diabolical fashion. Eerily reminiscent of old-fashioned children's storybook illustrations. Just the right amount of creepy mystery.
Here's one of my favourites:
Artist Travis Louie turns the Victorian world upside down and inside out in his own diabolical fashion. Eerily reminiscent of old-fashioned children's storybook illustrations. Just the right amount of creepy mystery.
Here's one of my favourites:
 |
| Source: Travis Louie |
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Dressing in the Dark of Winter: Finding Boots
In much of the Goth world, the number one seasonal fashion issue is how to stay dark in the intense heat of summer. Up here in the Northern Wastes (somewhere north of Edmonton, Alberta), the real problem is staying bloody warm in the near day-long dark of winter (great for vampires, not so good for mortals), never mind doing it goth-like.
However, for those of us who don't want to exchange the bat gear for hoserwear let's talk.
Unfortunately, the British, German and American design houses put out winter clothes for a chill day out on the moor. Those of us dodging ice floes rather than misty tors will have to look elsewhere.
At least the southron Goth designers have an excuse for neglecting or underestimating winter wear. But the Hyperborean couturiers are really not much better. Plastik Wrap has one woman's winter coat and Futurstate has no warm clothes to speak of. Yes, I know they design for the cybergoth crowd in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. But I've been to those cities in winter. They're bleeding cold. No excuse. No excuse.
As always, the Lady of the Manners over at the Gothic Charm School provides some excellent advice on how to dress for the dark of winter. But she doesn't give a lot of specifics. And she lives in Seattle where winter is like a lukewarm bath. (Amy over at the Ultimate Goth Guide--as always--has some excellent suggestions, too. But she lives in England where they haven't seen a real winter since the Thames last froze over in the 18th century.) So I would like to go into details here. And I will start with the gents since I am one; and Milady does seem to get the bulk of the attention in the Goth fashion world.
A word of caution. Some compromise will most likely have to be made before somebody realizes there is a market in northern climes like Canada, Russia and Scandinavia for adequate Goth winter wear. As a rule, you only want to approximate death in your look and not actually achieve it.
To begin, let's look at footwear. Some winter items like hats and scarves are fairly easy to find. But Gothy winter boots present a few problems. Regular Goth boots do not keep the toes from turning into corpses when the temperature drops below 0. And Goth shoemakers do not appear to design winter boots. You will have to improvise. So how does one become a comfortably decked-out Abominable Snowman?
Luckily, you have a few options depending on how much you want to spend:
However, for those of us who don't want to exchange the bat gear for hoserwear let's talk.
Unfortunately, the British, German and American design houses put out winter clothes for a chill day out on the moor. Those of us dodging ice floes rather than misty tors will have to look elsewhere.
At least the southron Goth designers have an excuse for neglecting or underestimating winter wear. But the Hyperborean couturiers are really not much better. Plastik Wrap has one woman's winter coat and Futurstate has no warm clothes to speak of. Yes, I know they design for the cybergoth crowd in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. But I've been to those cities in winter. They're bleeding cold. No excuse. No excuse.
As always, the Lady of the Manners over at the Gothic Charm School provides some excellent advice on how to dress for the dark of winter. But she doesn't give a lot of specifics. And she lives in Seattle where winter is like a lukewarm bath. (Amy over at the Ultimate Goth Guide--as always--has some excellent suggestions, too. But she lives in England where they haven't seen a real winter since the Thames last froze over in the 18th century.) So I would like to go into details here. And I will start with the gents since I am one; and Milady does seem to get the bulk of the attention in the Goth fashion world.
A word of caution. Some compromise will most likely have to be made before somebody realizes there is a market in northern climes like Canada, Russia and Scandinavia for adequate Goth winter wear. As a rule, you only want to approximate death in your look and not actually achieve it.
To begin, let's look at footwear. Some winter items like hats and scarves are fairly easy to find. But Gothy winter boots present a few problems. Regular Goth boots do not keep the toes from turning into corpses when the temperature drops below 0. And Goth shoemakers do not appear to design winter boots. You will have to improvise. So how does one become a comfortably decked-out Abominable Snowman?
Luckily, you have a few options depending on how much you want to spend:
- Find a pair of old-fashioned black leather commuter boots like the ones your father might have worn to work. For regular winter activity, they should be adequate. Fashion-wise, ok, they aren't fantastic but they pass. They're black. They're leather. They're relatively inexpensive. You can find them at any shoe store after September. Really, what more do you want?
- If you look around a bit, you might be able to upgrade and find more witchy winter wear at even mainstream stores like Sears. I found the following boots on-line; and they have sufficient dark credentials to Goth up any cold, snowy day:
- I know. What could be less Goth than UGG? But I did warn you. Adapt or freeze. Besides there is enough dark style in these two fleece-lined boots to keep you sombre and sassy throughout the dire months.
 Source: Sears Canada |
 |
| UGG Australia |
 |
| Source: Ugg Australia |
Unlike most Goth footwear, all of these boots will at least trip you out for the next six months at the icebay of Forochel. If anyone out there knows of better boots, please let me know. I've been searching and searching and searching...
Until next time have a witchy winter, my dark comrades!
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
This Xmas give the gift of anarchy
Xmas is coming. And we're all wondering what to buy. Like always.
But when Vivienne Westwood tells you to stop shopping and get a life. Oh crikey! We've gotta re-vamp this consumer holiday.
One option is to help others while helping ourselves. You can't buy the Revolution but you can start arming the armory.
If you need gift ideas, why not buy some books from anarchist publishing houses like PM Press or Between the Lines? As just one sample, PM Press has republished Nick Blinko's The Primal Screamer.
Goth horror meets punk rock. What could be better?
And you're not just helping the Revolution indirectly here. This fortnight both presses are donating a portion of their sales to help defend G20 protesters in Toronto.
In the summer of 2010, the world's semi-elected assholes and fuckheads gathered in Toronto to decide our collective fate. But they didn't want to be bothered by actually consulting us, so they had to beat the shit out of 1000s of protesters to shut them out and shut them up. Familiar, non?
Well, fuck them! This Xmas you can help defend innocent and nonviolent activists from bogus legal charges.
Buy a book and fight back against police brutality, poseur democracy and state repression.
But when Vivienne Westwood tells you to stop shopping and get a life. Oh crikey! We've gotta re-vamp this consumer holiday.
One option is to help others while helping ourselves. You can't buy the Revolution but you can start arming the armory.
If you need gift ideas, why not buy some books from anarchist publishing houses like PM Press or Between the Lines? As just one sample, PM Press has republished Nick Blinko's The Primal Screamer.
 |
| Source: PM Press |
Goth horror meets punk rock. What could be better?
And you're not just helping the Revolution indirectly here. This fortnight both presses are donating a portion of their sales to help defend G20 protesters in Toronto.
In the summer of 2010, the world's semi-elected assholes and fuckheads gathered in Toronto to decide our collective fate. But they didn't want to be bothered by actually consulting us, so they had to beat the shit out of 1000s of protesters to shut them out and shut them up. Familiar, non?
Well, fuck them! This Xmas you can help defend innocent and nonviolent activists from bogus legal charges.
Buy a book and fight back against police brutality, poseur democracy and state repression.
Reading into the Goth sensibility
Fresh from my larval stage, I came to Goth through literature. And not Gothic lit, either.
No, this baby bat cut his teeth on the English Romantics and the French Decadents. Totally badass!
Typically, Lord Byron was the man. And Manfred was the text. And I wanted to be the Byronic hero I found in my mom's English textbook:
'[The Byronic hero] is a man greater than others in emotion, capability, and suffering. Only among wild and vast forms of nature--the ocean, the precipes and glaciers of the Alps--can he find a counterpart to his own titanic passions. Driven by a demon within, he is fatal to himself and others; for no one can resist his hypnotic fascination and authority. He has committed a sin that itself expresses his superiority: lesser men could not even conceive a like transgression. Against his own suffering he brings to bear a superhuman pride and fortitude. Indeed, without the horror of his fate there could not be the splendor of self-assertion and self-mastery in which he experiences a strange joy and triumph (Perkins, David, ed. English Romantic Writers. Harcourt, Brace and World: New York, 1967. 782).'
Oh if only...if only...Oh, if only I had a dark secret. Oh, if only I had to go into exile. Oh, if only I was 'mad, bad, and dangerous to know.'
And from Byron I naturally went to Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Who doesn't shiver everytime she hears the opening lines of 'Kubla Khan'?
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure-dome decree:
Where Alph, the sacred river ran
Through caverns measureless to man
Down to a sunless sea.
It's like a horror movie running up and down my spine! Shudder. Shudder.
But Coleridge just gets better. You start with 'Kubla Khan' because it's short and you're a teenager. After you're hooked, then you go onto the big stuff: 'The Rime of the Ancient Mariner'. Here you get some really good chills:
Her lips were red, her looks were free,
Her locks were yellow as gold:
Her skin was white as leprosy,
The Night-mare LIFE-IN-DEATH was she,
Who thicks man's blood with cold.
Yummie! I'm rigid and frigid. Kind of like Michelle Bachman makes me feel. I know. I've said too much.
Byron and Coleridge rock but if you thought the Romantics were the shit, then just wait until you meet the Decadents. Baudelaire and Huysmans make Byron and Coleridge look like priests...ok, I'll go with that. Interpret that simile however you will.
In 'The Metamorphoses of the Vampire,' Charles Baudelaire masters doom and gloom:
Twisting and writhing like a snake on fiery sands,
Kneading her breast against her corset's metal bands,
The woman, meanwhile, from her mouth of strawberry [de sa bouche de fraise]
Let flow these fragrant words of musky mystery:
--'I have the moistest lip, and well I know the skill
Within a bed's soft heart, to lose the moral will.
I dry up all your tears on my triumphant bust
And make the old ones laugh like children, in their lust.
I take the place for those who see my naked arts
Of moon and of the sun and all the other stars.
I am, my dear savant, so studied in my charms
That when I stifle men within my ardent arms
Or when I give my breast to their excited bites,
Shy or unrestrained, of passionate delight,
On all those mattresses that swoon in ecstasy
Even the helpless angels damn themselves for me!'
Whew. You be the judge. Is it better for a boi to get his sex ed from Playboy or Baudelaire?
And if Baudelaire is a lesson in perversion, then J.-K. Huysmans is its perfection. Against Nature is the ultimate decadent tale about Duc Jean des Esseintes. A noble scion, world-weary, dreary and a little eerie, decides to go into self-exile by designing his own private utopia totally cut off from the rest of the world. Here he engages in lavish experiments and explores his every whim, taste and desire. Who wouldn't want to be Des Esseintes? Drinking exotic liqueurs, gazing at the prints and paintings of Gustave Moreau and Odilon Redon, reading Baudelaire and Barbey d'Aurevilly...Now that is ultraGoth!
From that batty apprenticeship I matured into full Goth-hood. First the reading, then the music, the style, the scene. . Since I've been a teenager, I've moved in and out of the scene but the dark and decadent sensibility endures and evolves. And I always come back. I can't resist...
Don't just look Goth. Be Goth, my dark comrades.
No, this baby bat cut his teeth on the English Romantics and the French Decadents. Totally badass!
Typically, Lord Byron was the man. And Manfred was the text. And I wanted to be the Byronic hero I found in my mom's English textbook:
'[The Byronic hero] is a man greater than others in emotion, capability, and suffering. Only among wild and vast forms of nature--the ocean, the precipes and glaciers of the Alps--can he find a counterpart to his own titanic passions. Driven by a demon within, he is fatal to himself and others; for no one can resist his hypnotic fascination and authority. He has committed a sin that itself expresses his superiority: lesser men could not even conceive a like transgression. Against his own suffering he brings to bear a superhuman pride and fortitude. Indeed, without the horror of his fate there could not be the splendor of self-assertion and self-mastery in which he experiences a strange joy and triumph (Perkins, David, ed. English Romantic Writers. Harcourt, Brace and World: New York, 1967. 782).'
Oh if only...if only...Oh, if only I had a dark secret. Oh, if only I had to go into exile. Oh, if only I was 'mad, bad, and dangerous to know.'
And from Byron I naturally went to Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Who doesn't shiver everytime she hears the opening lines of 'Kubla Khan'?
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure-dome decree:
Where Alph, the sacred river ran
Through caverns measureless to man
Down to a sunless sea.
It's like a horror movie running up and down my spine! Shudder. Shudder.
But Coleridge just gets better. You start with 'Kubla Khan' because it's short and you're a teenager. After you're hooked, then you go onto the big stuff: 'The Rime of the Ancient Mariner'. Here you get some really good chills:
Her lips were red, her looks were free,
Her locks were yellow as gold:
Her skin was white as leprosy,
The Night-mare LIFE-IN-DEATH was she,
Who thicks man's blood with cold.
Yummie! I'm rigid and frigid. Kind of like Michelle Bachman makes me feel. I know. I've said too much.
Byron and Coleridge rock but if you thought the Romantics were the shit, then just wait until you meet the Decadents. Baudelaire and Huysmans make Byron and Coleridge look like priests...ok, I'll go with that. Interpret that simile however you will.
In 'The Metamorphoses of the Vampire,' Charles Baudelaire masters doom and gloom:
Twisting and writhing like a snake on fiery sands,
Kneading her breast against her corset's metal bands,
The woman, meanwhile, from her mouth of strawberry [de sa bouche de fraise]
Let flow these fragrant words of musky mystery:
--'I have the moistest lip, and well I know the skill
Within a bed's soft heart, to lose the moral will.
I dry up all your tears on my triumphant bust
And make the old ones laugh like children, in their lust.
I take the place for those who see my naked arts
Of moon and of the sun and all the other stars.
I am, my dear savant, so studied in my charms
That when I stifle men within my ardent arms
Or when I give my breast to their excited bites,
Shy or unrestrained, of passionate delight,
On all those mattresses that swoon in ecstasy
Even the helpless angels damn themselves for me!'
Whew. You be the judge. Is it better for a boi to get his sex ed from Playboy or Baudelaire?
And if Baudelaire is a lesson in perversion, then J.-K. Huysmans is its perfection. Against Nature is the ultimate decadent tale about Duc Jean des Esseintes. A noble scion, world-weary, dreary and a little eerie, decides to go into self-exile by designing his own private utopia totally cut off from the rest of the world. Here he engages in lavish experiments and explores his every whim, taste and desire. Who wouldn't want to be Des Esseintes? Drinking exotic liqueurs, gazing at the prints and paintings of Gustave Moreau and Odilon Redon, reading Baudelaire and Barbey d'Aurevilly...Now that is ultraGoth!
From that batty apprenticeship I matured into full Goth-hood. First the reading, then the music, the style, the scene. . Since I've been a teenager, I've moved in and out of the scene but the dark and decadent sensibility endures and evolves. And I always come back. I can't resist...
Don't just look Goth. Be Goth, my dark comrades.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
An edible god
I am an atheist but I l-o-o-o-o-o-ve the weirwood in George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire. What is a weirwood, you ask? Well, here is Martin quoted at length from A Game of Thrones:
'At the center of the grove an ancient weirwood brooded over a small pool where the waters were black and cold. "The heart tree," Ned called it. The weirwood's bark was white as bone, its leaves dark red, like a thousand bloodstained hands. A face had been carved in the trunk of the great tree, its features long and melancholy, the deep-cut eyes red with dried sap and strangely watchful. They were old, those eyes; older than Winterfell itself. They had seen Brandon the Builder set the first stone, if the tales were true; they had watched the castle's granite walls rise around them. It was said that the children of the forest had carved the faces in the trees during the dawn centuries before the coming of the First Men across the narrow sea.'
...wow...wow...wow...
That's the weirwood. So like the Green Man. That pagan mystique and strength. Hinting of an aweful power implacable, unmoving, inhuman and all-encompassing. Wowza!
Now if you're like me and want to remystify your life a little bit, there's nothing like building a little weirwood of your own. If you're not fortunate enough to have your own forest to remodel, then you could find some inspiration from our dark comrades over at the Inn at the Crossroads.
Just look at this luscious and creepy white chocolate weirwood cake. Fangtastic!!!
Xmas is coming up! And nothing puts the pagan spirit back into the season like a weirwood cake...or an Xmas tree...or wreath...or...hell! pretty much everything about that holiday is pagan.
So thank you innkeepers for one more idea for a merry winter solstice or a sinister Black Christmas party.
Eat Goth. Play Goth. Live Goth, my pretties.
'At the center of the grove an ancient weirwood brooded over a small pool where the waters were black and cold. "The heart tree," Ned called it. The weirwood's bark was white as bone, its leaves dark red, like a thousand bloodstained hands. A face had been carved in the trunk of the great tree, its features long and melancholy, the deep-cut eyes red with dried sap and strangely watchful. They were old, those eyes; older than Winterfell itself. They had seen Brandon the Builder set the first stone, if the tales were true; they had watched the castle's granite walls rise around them. It was said that the children of the forest had carved the faces in the trees during the dawn centuries before the coming of the First Men across the narrow sea.'
...wow...wow...wow...
That's the weirwood. So like the Green Man. That pagan mystique and strength. Hinting of an aweful power implacable, unmoving, inhuman and all-encompassing. Wowza!
Now if you're like me and want to remystify your life a little bit, there's nothing like building a little weirwood of your own. If you're not fortunate enough to have your own forest to remodel, then you could find some inspiration from our dark comrades over at the Inn at the Crossroads.
Just look at this luscious and creepy white chocolate weirwood cake. Fangtastic!!!
 |
| Source: Inn at the Crossroads |
So thank you innkeepers for one more idea for a merry winter solstice or a sinister Black Christmas party.
Eat Goth. Play Goth. Live Goth, my pretties.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Keep it simple
Here is a good example of how to say complex things in very simple, everyday language. She gets right to the bottom line in gender oppression: sexism is the source. Homophobia. Transphobia. Are all varieties of sexism. A common concept in all gender theory.
Paisley Currah, a CUNY professor of political science, does a similar job of simplifying and demystifying difficult ideas about gender in his book Transgender Rights, which unfortunately appears to be out of print. Currah actually makes the theories of Judith Butler, Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida comprehensible. Elegant and eloquent.
Watch on, read on, gothlings!
Paisley Currah, a CUNY professor of political science, does a similar job of simplifying and demystifying difficult ideas about gender in his book Transgender Rights, which unfortunately appears to be out of print. Currah actually makes the theories of Judith Butler, Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida comprehensible. Elegant and eloquent.
Watch on, read on, gothlings!
Are Goths oppressed?
Goths are subject to bullying. Does that mean they are oppressed? Well, it depends on how you define bullying and oppression--and whether or not you see them as connected phenomena.
That Goths are bullied is clear. You can read accounts at the Ultimate Goth Guide. Here is an example. Here are some more. And here are some examples of bullycide. I could go on and on and on.
And the bullying does go on. It continues after high school. Into adulthood. The murder of Sophie Lancaster for being a Goth is probably the most egregious case. That would be a hate crime if Lancaster had belonged to a visible minority. But didn't she?
As bullying expert Barb Coloroso points out: bullying is about contempt--and I would add contempt for difference. It is part of the matrix of social responses to despised minorities--and as targets all minorities are substitutes for each other. The point is not the nature of the other but the social fact of othering. Any other is just as good for the bully and the forces s/he represents as only s/he can.
Who do bullies go after? The obviously wierd. The sexually ambiguous--or threatening. The racially diverse. The targets highlight the role bullies play as the red right hand of socialization.
And bullying is part of the hazing process we politely call socialization. The bully is the frontline enforcing agent of the 'normal.' S/he can do things that are outside the means of other agents of socialization. Your parents and teachers and coaches can't abuse you (well, that's the message at least, even if it isn't the reality) but the bully can.
The system is complicit. Co-dependent. Enabling. Society would not exist without the bully. The bully beats 'the rules' into his or her victims; and the victims are outsiders who need to be reigned in or turned into a deterrent for others.
In the link above, Coloroso points out how ineffectual most official responses are to bullying. Teachers sit the victim and the bully down together and talk them through it. The bully apologizes, the victim has to accept it and then everyone happily goes back to the brutal game of high school humiliation and oppression.
Coloroso doesn't explain why this happens. She seems to think it's due to gullilbility or ignorance. What if it's part of the system? Plausible deniability: When I found out what was happening, I did what I could to stop it. I sat them down. We talked about how terrible bullying is. She apologized. Problem solved. Right...The teacher knows what he or she is doing, even if he or she disavows it.
Bullying is a political act. It is oppression. Goths need to protect themselves accordingly.
Most advice on fighting bullying is personal or social. That is why it is ineffectual and insufficient. If bullying is political, then the response needs to be collective and organized.
A key to where we can maybe begin to organize and act lies in the murder of Sophie Lancaster. She was targeted because she was a Goth. That much is clear. But what does that mean? Not just that she didn't fit in or belonged to a marginalized group. But also because Goth is a socioeconomic symbol.
Goths tend to be better educated, middle class and professional. Even if they aren't individually, they are stereotyped in this way. And that matters in the current class war. As the rich intensify their assault on the middle class, they are enlisting the assistance of the poor and working class. Goths are just one more victim in this conflict.
Yes, they aren't directly enlisting angry youth but they sure are doing it indirectly. Think of the young men who attacked and killed Lancaster. Disaffected youth with no prospects living in ever-diminishing economic conditions. A real threat to the system. But you keep them uneducated. You keep them disorganized with drugs and consumer culture. What does that ensure? They never target their real enemies. They go after the nearest best thing. Smart, articulate, affable Sophie Lancaster has it better. She is it for the moment.
If socioeconomic conditions lie behind bullying, then what should we do? Organize along with the global Occupying movement for:
And let's Occupy the world, my dark comrades!
That Goths are bullied is clear. You can read accounts at the Ultimate Goth Guide. Here is an example. Here are some more. And here are some examples of bullycide. I could go on and on and on.
And the bullying does go on. It continues after high school. Into adulthood. The murder of Sophie Lancaster for being a Goth is probably the most egregious case. That would be a hate crime if Lancaster had belonged to a visible minority. But didn't she?
As bullying expert Barb Coloroso points out: bullying is about contempt--and I would add contempt for difference. It is part of the matrix of social responses to despised minorities--and as targets all minorities are substitutes for each other. The point is not the nature of the other but the social fact of othering. Any other is just as good for the bully and the forces s/he represents as only s/he can.
Who do bullies go after? The obviously wierd. The sexually ambiguous--or threatening. The racially diverse. The targets highlight the role bullies play as the red right hand of socialization.
And bullying is part of the hazing process we politely call socialization. The bully is the frontline enforcing agent of the 'normal.' S/he can do things that are outside the means of other agents of socialization. Your parents and teachers and coaches can't abuse you (well, that's the message at least, even if it isn't the reality) but the bully can.
The system is complicit. Co-dependent. Enabling. Society would not exist without the bully. The bully beats 'the rules' into his or her victims; and the victims are outsiders who need to be reigned in or turned into a deterrent for others.
In the link above, Coloroso points out how ineffectual most official responses are to bullying. Teachers sit the victim and the bully down together and talk them through it. The bully apologizes, the victim has to accept it and then everyone happily goes back to the brutal game of high school humiliation and oppression.
Coloroso doesn't explain why this happens. She seems to think it's due to gullilbility or ignorance. What if it's part of the system? Plausible deniability: When I found out what was happening, I did what I could to stop it. I sat them down. We talked about how terrible bullying is. She apologized. Problem solved. Right...The teacher knows what he or she is doing, even if he or she disavows it.
Bullying is a political act. It is oppression. Goths need to protect themselves accordingly.
Most advice on fighting bullying is personal or social. That is why it is ineffectual and insufficient. If bullying is political, then the response needs to be collective and organized.
A key to where we can maybe begin to organize and act lies in the murder of Sophie Lancaster. She was targeted because she was a Goth. That much is clear. But what does that mean? Not just that she didn't fit in or belonged to a marginalized group. But also because Goth is a socioeconomic symbol.
Goths tend to be better educated, middle class and professional. Even if they aren't individually, they are stereotyped in this way. And that matters in the current class war. As the rich intensify their assault on the middle class, they are enlisting the assistance of the poor and working class. Goths are just one more victim in this conflict.
Yes, they aren't directly enlisting angry youth but they sure are doing it indirectly. Think of the young men who attacked and killed Lancaster. Disaffected youth with no prospects living in ever-diminishing economic conditions. A real threat to the system. But you keep them uneducated. You keep them disorganized with drugs and consumer culture. What does that ensure? They never target their real enemies. They go after the nearest best thing. Smart, articulate, affable Sophie Lancaster has it better. She is it for the moment.
If socioeconomic conditions lie behind bullying, then what should we do? Organize along with the global Occupying movement for:
- More public funding of education, training, and social services.
- Free post-secondary education to open it up for everyone.
- Higher corporate and progressive income taxes to fund these public goods.
- Redistribute income and reduce the growing income gap.
- The classroom.
- The workplace.
- All social institutions.
And let's Occupy the world, my dark comrades!
Bent, not straight--part two
We all know the difference between the rub one out on the other's body get my rocks off kind of sex. And real sex. The boundary-breaking, ego-extinguishing sort of intimacy that depends on and creates utter trust, utter abandonment and utter obliteration. That is the model for intersubjective equality. For the collapse of the liberal democratic family-bound self into the smudged body of interdependence, interaction and interpenetration. There we don't end with our bodies. We share our bodies. Feminist writers like Catherine Waldby and Lynne Segal talk about this self-dissolving intimacy and its political impact on the relations between the sexes.
But bending heterosexuality doesn't start and end with sex. This intimacy needs to be developed and extended to undermine and overthrow hetero-norms. On a personal--and collective level.
On a personal level, bending gender and gender bending need to involve openness and experimentation. Our sex and gender have been written onto and into us; and we need to change the font, alter the word order, strike some words out, replace others and rewrite some whole sentences hither and thither and yon. But there's no absolutes here and no simple program. Overcoming sex and gender means more than just switching things up: backwards to forwards, upside down to rightside up, ass to mouth...Androgyny can be gender bending but it can also reinforce and conserve the norm, for example.
Deconstructing our gendered self doesn't mean making the feminine the new black. The word of the day for body re/making is bricolage: take a bit of the masculine and the feminine, stir it up, rip it up and cut and paste it. Traditional masculine traits like self-confidence are valuable but:
We also need to remember that appearances matter. If gender isn't real and fixed, then the whole notion of identity as a found object dissipates. De-essentializing and decentring identities gives body play, style and appearances more meaning than they usually get in politics and culture. Piercings, androgynous or elaborate haircuts and unusual and striking clothes can all contribute to bending gender and sexuality. In a chapter titled 'Visibly Queer' in her book In the Flesh: The Cultural Politics of Body Modification, Victoria Pitts makes exactly this point: different bodies challenge the conformist image of the 'right' type of body and all the political, cultural and moral assumptions that go with it.
If there is no essential depth, then the surface is the realm of significance and signification. Our symbols and role-playing become deconstructing signs that undermine norms about the male and femal body, behavior and sexuality. The boi wearing a corset and deadfalls is not just making a statement but radically challenging the 'idea' of what makes a man in our society. And if that same boi dances in an ambiguous or flagrantly feminine fashion with the purpose of attracting the female gaze, it can further subvert traditional roles. But if he is simply objectified in a plain vanilla role reversal, then it only reinforces oppressive patterns of power. In this situation, the problem is acting like a man regardless of your sex. To keep the radical potential of style, appearance and performance, the actor can't become an object but must remain an active performer.
And the performance is collaborative. As Nikki Sullivan,Victoria Pitts and others have pointed out, body re/making is not a solo act. I am not alone when I identify myself. Others also identify me and share my performance, so another feature of bending is recognizing the signifying role of other people and reacting to it with sensitivity and respect.
For example, women don't like getting propositioned in elevators. You might think it's spontaneous and harmless. They don't. Something about being alone in a enclosed space with a strange man makes women nervous. Are you really surprised? Whatever you meant by it, that message is not being passed on. You don't control the meaning of your actions by yourself. Others help. So pay attention.
And bend away this weekend. Bend sinister. Bend and sway, children of the night.
But bending heterosexuality doesn't start and end with sex. This intimacy needs to be developed and extended to undermine and overthrow hetero-norms. On a personal--and collective level.
On a personal level, bending gender and gender bending need to involve openness and experimentation. Our sex and gender have been written onto and into us; and we need to change the font, alter the word order, strike some words out, replace others and rewrite some whole sentences hither and thither and yon. But there's no absolutes here and no simple program. Overcoming sex and gender means more than just switching things up: backwards to forwards, upside down to rightside up, ass to mouth...Androgyny can be gender bending but it can also reinforce and conserve the norm, for example.
Deconstructing our gendered self doesn't mean making the feminine the new black. The word of the day for body re/making is bricolage: take a bit of the masculine and the feminine, stir it up, rip it up and cut and paste it. Traditional masculine traits like self-confidence are valuable but:
- They are not inherently masculine; and
- They inhibit other practices like vulnerability or intimacy, etc.
- They are not inherently feminine; and
- They inhibit other practices like assertiveness, etc.
We also need to remember that appearances matter. If gender isn't real and fixed, then the whole notion of identity as a found object dissipates. De-essentializing and decentring identities gives body play, style and appearances more meaning than they usually get in politics and culture. Piercings, androgynous or elaborate haircuts and unusual and striking clothes can all contribute to bending gender and sexuality. In a chapter titled 'Visibly Queer' in her book In the Flesh: The Cultural Politics of Body Modification, Victoria Pitts makes exactly this point: different bodies challenge the conformist image of the 'right' type of body and all the political, cultural and moral assumptions that go with it.
If there is no essential depth, then the surface is the realm of significance and signification. Our symbols and role-playing become deconstructing signs that undermine norms about the male and femal body, behavior and sexuality. The boi wearing a corset and deadfalls is not just making a statement but radically challenging the 'idea' of what makes a man in our society. And if that same boi dances in an ambiguous or flagrantly feminine fashion with the purpose of attracting the female gaze, it can further subvert traditional roles. But if he is simply objectified in a plain vanilla role reversal, then it only reinforces oppressive patterns of power. In this situation, the problem is acting like a man regardless of your sex. To keep the radical potential of style, appearance and performance, the actor can't become an object but must remain an active performer.
And the performance is collaborative. As Nikki Sullivan,Victoria Pitts and others have pointed out, body re/making is not a solo act. I am not alone when I identify myself. Others also identify me and share my performance, so another feature of bending is recognizing the signifying role of other people and reacting to it with sensitivity and respect.
For example, women don't like getting propositioned in elevators. You might think it's spontaneous and harmless. They don't. Something about being alone in a enclosed space with a strange man makes women nervous. Are you really surprised? Whatever you meant by it, that message is not being passed on. You don't control the meaning of your actions by yourself. Others help. So pay attention.
And bend away this weekend. Bend sinister. Bend and sway, children of the night.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Saw a snowy owl
on my way to work this morning.
"Winter is coming" to northern Canada.
As the snow smothers the world and a vampire's hunting time eclipses her beauty rest, I can't help but wonder when will I meet my first white walker?
Yes, it is going to get that bad up here. Might as well be at the Wall.
"Winter is coming" to northern Canada.
As the snow smothers the world and a vampire's hunting time eclipses her beauty rest, I can't help but wonder when will I meet my first white walker?
Yes, it is going to get that bad up here. Might as well be at the Wall.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Great moments in zombie cinema
As all zombologists know, Shaun of the Dead is absolutely fabulous. What more can I say? Well, I could say a lot more but I'm only going to say a wee bit.
Shaun of the Dead mixes up genres like an orgy mixes up bodies. A how-to-survive tragicomic thread binds it all together but it is a mash-up of romantic comedy, horror, drama, comedy (it's different, people!), social commentary, family drama (again, it's different)...pretty much everything! And it doesn't just mix up the genres, it alternates between and combines them brilliantly.
But does Shaun of the Dead help advance research in the field of zombology? Well, it does address an academic question that has eluded distinguished zombologists for aeons. How do zombies know the difference between fellow undead and living food?
Zombies are animated corpses. Yes, it's confusing. But what do they know? How do they know it? What is the basis for their action? Even if it is all instinctual, what then is the trigger? Is there a special zombie sense?
How does Shaun of the Dead address this question? It reveals the stunning truth in one of the funniest scenes in the film: to get through a horde of zombies to the Winchester, Shaun et al decide to trick the undead by imitating them. Hilarious! Absurd! Tres bon!
Now we know. Zombies limited senses track movement. If it doesn't lurch and clod about in a somnambulistic way and yet is shaped in vaguely hominid form--IT IS FOOD!!!
So practice up, my dark siblings. Do the zombie walk. Do the zombie dance. Get ready for the zombie apocalypse.
Shaun of the Dead mixes up genres like an orgy mixes up bodies. A how-to-survive tragicomic thread binds it all together but it is a mash-up of romantic comedy, horror, drama, comedy (it's different, people!), social commentary, family drama (again, it's different)...pretty much everything! And it doesn't just mix up the genres, it alternates between and combines them brilliantly.
But does Shaun of the Dead help advance research in the field of zombology? Well, it does address an academic question that has eluded distinguished zombologists for aeons. How do zombies know the difference between fellow undead and living food?
Zombies are animated corpses. Yes, it's confusing. But what do they know? How do they know it? What is the basis for their action? Even if it is all instinctual, what then is the trigger? Is there a special zombie sense?
How does Shaun of the Dead address this question? It reveals the stunning truth in one of the funniest scenes in the film: to get through a horde of zombies to the Winchester, Shaun et al decide to trick the undead by imitating them. Hilarious! Absurd! Tres bon!
Now we know. Zombies limited senses track movement. If it doesn't lurch and clod about in a somnambulistic way and yet is shaped in vaguely hominid form--IT IS FOOD!!!
So practice up, my dark siblings. Do the zombie walk. Do the zombie dance. Get ready for the zombie apocalypse.
The Value of Life: Don Marquis and Abortion
Philosophy is often pretty pointless. We do what we do because we just do it. No real reason. No deep thought involved. Indeed, when we do think about it we usually end up drunk trying to stop thinking about it.
Don Marquis' pro-life argument shows us why philosophy goes nowhere--and worse. Marquis is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Kansas. He wants to make a secular case against abortion. So he needs to show what it is about abortion that is so fucking wrong.
Marquis thinks he's found it in this: '[w]hat makes killing wrong is...its effect on the victim. The loss of one's life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer. The loss of one's life deprives us of all the experiences, activities, projects and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one's future. Therefore, killing someone is wrong, primarily, because the killing inflicts (one of) the greatest possible losses on the victim.' And what is good for the goose and gander is good for the gosling, too. Abortion kills a fetus which also has a future of value; and so, because it takes away this valuable future it is also wrong. Seems airtight, non? Marquis thinks so.
The problem is his argument unravels once we look at his fundamental assumption. Marquis says: 'What makes killing any adult human being prima facie seriously wrong is the loss of his...future.' Yes, on the face. Well, this facial doesn't stick.
Marquis assumes that life is good and valuable--and that this fact doesn't need to be proven or defended. What if he is wrong?
Pessimists like Arthur Schopenhauer, Julius Bahnsen, Peter Wessel Zapffe and Thomas Ligotti all argue that life is horrible, meaningless and painful. What if they are right? What does that do to arguments about 'valuable futures' and such?
So Don, what if life isn't worth living? What if it would have been better to have never been born?
Need I say more? Drink up me hearties!
Don Marquis' pro-life argument shows us why philosophy goes nowhere--and worse. Marquis is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Kansas. He wants to make a secular case against abortion. So he needs to show what it is about abortion that is so fucking wrong.
Marquis thinks he's found it in this: '[w]hat makes killing wrong is...its effect on the victim. The loss of one's life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer. The loss of one's life deprives us of all the experiences, activities, projects and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one's future. Therefore, killing someone is wrong, primarily, because the killing inflicts (one of) the greatest possible losses on the victim.' And what is good for the goose and gander is good for the gosling, too. Abortion kills a fetus which also has a future of value; and so, because it takes away this valuable future it is also wrong. Seems airtight, non? Marquis thinks so.
The problem is his argument unravels once we look at his fundamental assumption. Marquis says: 'What makes killing any adult human being prima facie seriously wrong is the loss of his...future.' Yes, on the face. Well, this facial doesn't stick.
Marquis assumes that life is good and valuable--and that this fact doesn't need to be proven or defended. What if he is wrong?
Pessimists like Arthur Schopenhauer, Julius Bahnsen, Peter Wessel Zapffe and Thomas Ligotti all argue that life is horrible, meaningless and painful. What if they are right? What does that do to arguments about 'valuable futures' and such?
So Don, what if life isn't worth living? What if it would have been better to have never been born?
Need I say more? Drink up me hearties!
Bent, not straight--part one
Sexual orientation isn't innate nor is it fixed but that doesn't make it a choice. I can't decide to like bois today and grrls tomorrow. Our sexual orientation may change but we can't switch from one side to the other.
I like grrls. I can't help it. All the feminine gender signifiers--boobs, curves, soft features--attract me. I'm the product of a heteronormative society where all nascent bodily reactions are directed toward the proper object: the opposite sex. So, what's a poor boi to do?
Well, I identify as hetero but that doesn't mean I have to be straight. I'm bent, not straight.
I don't like that word. Straight doesn't apply to me because it suggests, well, not queer. Straight belongs to the system of heterosexuality because it implies 'normal' and conformist. And it is used that way both by proponents and detractors.
If you're straight, you can't be queer because there's nothing weird, different or othering about you. Straight is about work, elections, savings accounts, minivans, family and mortgages. What could be less radical?
So let's bend it. Make it different. Make it messy, muddled and murky. You don't have to be straight to be hetero.
A bent approach is ready to break down and re-form heterosexuality. Equality is its aim; and it pursues it through the commingling of the sexes.
Note: I've decided to break this post up because it started getting too large. I'll post the other parts over the next week or so.
I like grrls. I can't help it. All the feminine gender signifiers--boobs, curves, soft features--attract me. I'm the product of a heteronormative society where all nascent bodily reactions are directed toward the proper object: the opposite sex. So, what's a poor boi to do?
Well, I identify as hetero but that doesn't mean I have to be straight. I'm bent, not straight.
I don't like that word. Straight doesn't apply to me because it suggests, well, not queer. Straight belongs to the system of heterosexuality because it implies 'normal' and conformist. And it is used that way both by proponents and detractors.
If you're straight, you can't be queer because there's nothing weird, different or othering about you. Straight is about work, elections, savings accounts, minivans, family and mortgages. What could be less radical?
So let's bend it. Make it different. Make it messy, muddled and murky. You don't have to be straight to be hetero.
A bent approach is ready to break down and re-form heterosexuality. Equality is its aim; and it pursues it through the commingling of the sexes.
Note: I've decided to break this post up because it started getting too large. I'll post the other parts over the next week or so.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
My dinner with zombie
Last night, a few friends came over and we had a zombie dinner. The whole idea was to cook and consume foods like those zombies would eat. No, human meat was not on the menu...yet.
We could only approximate zombie food. Part ironic. Part iconic. Part outright gross. Part marvelous.
Here's the menu for your delectation and desecration:
I'm hoping we'll get another blog together to share recipes and ideas, so that's all for now. I'll try to get some pics up in a bit as well.
Live Goth. Eat Goth. My pretties.
We could only approximate zombie food. Part ironic. Part iconic. Part outright gross. Part marvelous.
Here's the menu for your delectation and desecration:
- Cosmopolitans for Carl Sagan Day with red raspberry agar blood clots.
- Bloody Marys. The favourite drink of our undead siblings.
- Vampire Cocktails. Yes, wrong undead but bloody fabulous: 1 1/2 oz vodka, 1/2 oz Chambord, and top up an old-fashioned with cranberry juice.
- Pina colada agar noodles, strawberries and cream mixed together to look like intestines with blood clots and bile. Bloody fantastic!
- Lychee fruit with black grapes served in raspberry or blueberry jello. Otherwise known as eyeballs in decomposing body fluid.
- Pork fillets in oatmeal crisp--or shins emerging from the grave.
- Stewed tripe. Yes, that's right, stewed tripe. Need I say more? It is actually delicious with fennel seeds. The licorice flavour compliments it.
- Liver. You know zombies are into organ meat. Not an outrageous menu item but by far the least enjoyable. I just can't stomach it. Unlike tripe.
- Spaghetti squash with cranberries, thyme and butter. Kind of repeated the intestines with blood clot theme but zombies have rather predictable eating habits, don't they?
I'm hoping we'll get another blog together to share recipes and ideas, so that's all for now. I'll try to get some pics up in a bit as well.
Live Goth. Eat Goth. My pretties.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Tighty Whitie
Apparently, black isn't pale enough for real Goth. Via the Ultimate Goth Guide comes this article on racism and black Goths.
That Goth is raced is not surprising. That Goth subculture would contain so many people with dumbass racist ideas about Goth identity is more than a little dismaying. But then that's how racism works in white society. It's the constant undercurrent working beneath the polite appearances. Then something gets caught and pulled under to reveal just how racist the entire system actually is. And we catch a glimpse of how whiteness is enforced.
Goth is very white. That's how it was formed. And if Goths only see whiteness then that becomes a part of the identity. It's just the norm. The way things are. That's how whiteness works. Other people just can't do it right. They can't act white. It's something ineffable that makes it impossible to copy. That's how it excludes.
Because there is no 'sense' to it, it does make it easy to criticize, mock and ridicule. Saying it, however, doesn't change it. There's too much invested in racism for it to disappear with recognition and denunciation. It is a part of being white. We all know it. We catch those horrible thoughts, the racist imp of the perverse, all the time; and we control the monster.
But it takes a lot of work; and our identities are not our own. They lie outside us; and that's the part we have to negotiate and choreograph with other people. That's where subculture comes in as a potentially transformative institution. We can redefine and redeploy our collective identities.
Let's have a little imagination, tighty whities! We need to think and act and live beyond the pale into the dark future.
Cybergoth is certainly promising. It points the way to the perfect perky gloomth. Androgyny of both genders coupled with a trans-racist vision that doesn't dismiss or downplay racial identities but provides methods and space for experimenting with and deconstructing race. Blacks, whites and other races can then pull it off together in different, twisted and dystopian performances.
Not utopian. Dystopian because it's never finished. It is conflicted and conflicting. Based on problems and problematizing. And intensifying trouble. To make it hard for others and for ourselves.
Come on, gothlings. We can all play together. People of all races are welcome for a little dead time.
That Goth is raced is not surprising. That Goth subculture would contain so many people with dumbass racist ideas about Goth identity is more than a little dismaying. But then that's how racism works in white society. It's the constant undercurrent working beneath the polite appearances. Then something gets caught and pulled under to reveal just how racist the entire system actually is. And we catch a glimpse of how whiteness is enforced.
Goth is very white. That's how it was formed. And if Goths only see whiteness then that becomes a part of the identity. It's just the norm. The way things are. That's how whiteness works. Other people just can't do it right. They can't act white. It's something ineffable that makes it impossible to copy. That's how it excludes.
Because there is no 'sense' to it, it does make it easy to criticize, mock and ridicule. Saying it, however, doesn't change it. There's too much invested in racism for it to disappear with recognition and denunciation. It is a part of being white. We all know it. We catch those horrible thoughts, the racist imp of the perverse, all the time; and we control the monster.
But it takes a lot of work; and our identities are not our own. They lie outside us; and that's the part we have to negotiate and choreograph with other people. That's where subculture comes in as a potentially transformative institution. We can redefine and redeploy our collective identities.
Let's have a little imagination, tighty whities! We need to think and act and live beyond the pale into the dark future.
Cybergoth is certainly promising. It points the way to the perfect perky gloomth. Androgyny of both genders coupled with a trans-racist vision that doesn't dismiss or downplay racial identities but provides methods and space for experimenting with and deconstructing race. Blacks, whites and other races can then pull it off together in different, twisted and dystopian performances.
Not utopian. Dystopian because it's never finished. It is conflicted and conflicting. Based on problems and problematizing. And intensifying trouble. To make it hard for others and for ourselves.
Come on, gothlings. We can all play together. People of all races are welcome for a little dead time.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Porn and the tools of oppression
Judith Butler troubles gender and feminism in Gender Trouble. She asks, who is a woman? What is a woman? And, who is the subject of feminism?
Gender haunts feminism in paradoxical ways. A critical theory that challenges gender, strangely also normalizes and reinforces gender. Woman are oppressed. We all know that men do the oppressing. Feminism is about liberating women. We all know who women are. It is obvious; and in the worst cases MTFs need not apply. Not all feminism does this but certainly the most popular and mainstream forms do.
An extreme example of this form of feminism is "Sexuality, Pornography, and Method: 'Pleasure under Patriarchy,'" by Catherine A. MacKinnon. According to MacKinnon's one-dimensional account of porn, women are victimized by porn even when their own bodies betray them and they get wet watching it. For men though, porn is sex: 'What do men want? Pornography provides an answer. Pornography permits men to have whatever they want sexually...It connects the centrality of visual objectification to both male sexual arousal and male models of knowledge and verification, connecting objectivity with objectification. It shows how men see the world, how in seeing it they access and possess it, and how this is an act of dominance over it. It shows what men want and gives it to them .'
So porn is the essence of masculinity: 'No pornography, no male sexuality.' And the essence of porn is this truth: 'Women are in pornography to be violated and taken, men to violate and take them.'
Ok, maybe this is internally consistent but then what about this statement on the role of porn: 'Pornography is a means through which sexuality is socially constructed, a site of construction, a domain of exercise. It constructs women as things for sexual use and constructs its consumers to desperately want women to desperately want possession and cruelty and dehumanization. Inequality itself, subjection itself, hierarchy itself, objectification itself, with self-determination ecstatically relinquished, is the apparent content of women's sexual desire and desirability.'
Now, it is hard to read this whole essay by MacKinnon as anything but a diatribe against men and male sexuality. That is a problem not because it is anti-male but because it is so obviously discriminatory. MacKinnon doesn't care what porn does to men, she is only interested in women. She takes a constructionist view of women's sexuality but then seems to naturalize male sexuality--how else do we explain her point that porn is sex for men? Without then going to how it constructs male sexuality in an equally oppressive way?
MacKinnon told us that sex is constructed. Doesn't that mean for both sexes? Porn does men as much as it does women. It is clearly part of the gendering process.
If men are made as much as women are, then men are not identical with the system of gender oppression. 'Compulsory heterosexuality' (in Adrienne Rich's terms) is not just a negative regime for women. Men are also subject to it. Feminism, however, often sees men--all men--as oppressors or as the tools of oppression. But what if that is part of the mystique of the regime? It blinds both men and women to what is actually happening: men are constructed in a certain way, so that they can be used as the tools of oppression.
Think about the porn you've watched recently--and I know you have!!! What does it tell us about gender? Recall all that humping and pumping and sucking and fisting and licking and rubbing in pose after pose like a fucking circus act of fucking. What was all that contortionist display about, really?
Porn is not about pleasure--even male pleasure. It is about performance, endurance and gymnastics. The sexual positions used in porn are about as much fun as yoga. Porn is a grueling extreme sport; and one of its roles is to discipline men as much as women. It is about setting men up for failure and training them in sexual and sex-role anxiety and sexual overcompensation.
Can you stuff her until she is raw and sore? Can you spread her to the breaking point? Can you hold back until she begs for it to end in a massive cascade of cum across her face? If you can't, then you aren't a real man. But we've got an app for that. We can help you learn how to do it like a man. We can help you make up for any of your manly deficiencies.
Porn presents the cartoon version of manliness. But for men, it is a serious form of indoctrination into the right way to do masculinity, the right way to act and fuck and love--the right way to treat the other.
Porn oppresses men as much as women. It isn't male sexuality that is behind porn. It helps construct male sexuality in a particular and negative way.
So if men are not inherently the oppressors but only the fabricated tools of oppression, then maybe they can be re-tooled. And maybe feminism can be part of the re-tooling process.
How is one of the many things we'll look at, my pretties.
Gender haunts feminism in paradoxical ways. A critical theory that challenges gender, strangely also normalizes and reinforces gender. Woman are oppressed. We all know that men do the oppressing. Feminism is about liberating women. We all know who women are. It is obvious; and in the worst cases MTFs need not apply. Not all feminism does this but certainly the most popular and mainstream forms do.
An extreme example of this form of feminism is "Sexuality, Pornography, and Method: 'Pleasure under Patriarchy,'" by Catherine A. MacKinnon. According to MacKinnon's one-dimensional account of porn, women are victimized by porn even when their own bodies betray them and they get wet watching it. For men though, porn is sex: 'What do men want? Pornography provides an answer. Pornography permits men to have whatever they want sexually...It connects the centrality of visual objectification to both male sexual arousal and male models of knowledge and verification, connecting objectivity with objectification. It shows how men see the world, how in seeing it they access and possess it, and how this is an act of dominance over it. It shows what men want and gives it to them .'
So porn is the essence of masculinity: 'No pornography, no male sexuality.' And the essence of porn is this truth: 'Women are in pornography to be violated and taken, men to violate and take them.'
Ok, maybe this is internally consistent but then what about this statement on the role of porn: 'Pornography is a means through which sexuality is socially constructed, a site of construction, a domain of exercise. It constructs women as things for sexual use and constructs its consumers to desperately want women to desperately want possession and cruelty and dehumanization. Inequality itself, subjection itself, hierarchy itself, objectification itself, with self-determination ecstatically relinquished, is the apparent content of women's sexual desire and desirability.'
Now, it is hard to read this whole essay by MacKinnon as anything but a diatribe against men and male sexuality. That is a problem not because it is anti-male but because it is so obviously discriminatory. MacKinnon doesn't care what porn does to men, she is only interested in women. She takes a constructionist view of women's sexuality but then seems to naturalize male sexuality--how else do we explain her point that porn is sex for men? Without then going to how it constructs male sexuality in an equally oppressive way?
MacKinnon told us that sex is constructed. Doesn't that mean for both sexes? Porn does men as much as it does women. It is clearly part of the gendering process.
If men are made as much as women are, then men are not identical with the system of gender oppression. 'Compulsory heterosexuality' (in Adrienne Rich's terms) is not just a negative regime for women. Men are also subject to it. Feminism, however, often sees men--all men--as oppressors or as the tools of oppression. But what if that is part of the mystique of the regime? It blinds both men and women to what is actually happening: men are constructed in a certain way, so that they can be used as the tools of oppression.
Think about the porn you've watched recently--and I know you have!!! What does it tell us about gender? Recall all that humping and pumping and sucking and fisting and licking and rubbing in pose after pose like a fucking circus act of fucking. What was all that contortionist display about, really?
Porn is not about pleasure--even male pleasure. It is about performance, endurance and gymnastics. The sexual positions used in porn are about as much fun as yoga. Porn is a grueling extreme sport; and one of its roles is to discipline men as much as women. It is about setting men up for failure and training them in sexual and sex-role anxiety and sexual overcompensation.
Can you stuff her until she is raw and sore? Can you spread her to the breaking point? Can you hold back until she begs for it to end in a massive cascade of cum across her face? If you can't, then you aren't a real man. But we've got an app for that. We can help you learn how to do it like a man. We can help you make up for any of your manly deficiencies.
Porn presents the cartoon version of manliness. But for men, it is a serious form of indoctrination into the right way to do masculinity, the right way to act and fuck and love--the right way to treat the other.
Porn oppresses men as much as women. It isn't male sexuality that is behind porn. It helps construct male sexuality in a particular and negative way.
So if men are not inherently the oppressors but only the fabricated tools of oppression, then maybe they can be re-tooled. And maybe feminism can be part of the re-tooling process.
How is one of the many things we'll look at, my pretties.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
JesusWeenie Watch
A new Mississippi personhood bill is part of the Christian fundamentalist war on women, freedom and family planning. But thank gawd women don't have to wear them hijabs. That makes all the difference!
Seriously, these harsh Mississippi laws reveal the raw naked end times of the anti-choice movement. And we should be calling it that--the anti-choice movement. That is exactly what it is about. Taking choice, taking freedom, taking equality away from men and women as part of a Christian fundie regime. Any assault then, any assault on reproductive rights, no matter how seemingly reasonable, is part of this regime of Christian fundamentalist repression and shares these absolute and uncompromising anti-choice goals.
Think of that, siblings. It makes The Handmaid's Tale look like a Christian theme park. That is what they want. That is what it is all about. Not saving little fetuses. Not protecting life. But destroying lives. Controlling lives. Dictating every single fucking detail of life. It's in Exodus, it's in Deutoronomy, it's in Leviticus, people!!!
Now, we know what we are fighting against. We know what we are fighting for. Now, we gotta fight!
Seriously, these harsh Mississippi laws reveal the raw naked end times of the anti-choice movement. And we should be calling it that--the anti-choice movement. That is exactly what it is about. Taking choice, taking freedom, taking equality away from men and women as part of a Christian fundie regime. Any assault then, any assault on reproductive rights, no matter how seemingly reasonable, is part of this regime of Christian fundamentalist repression and shares these absolute and uncompromising anti-choice goals.
Think of that, siblings. It makes The Handmaid's Tale look like a Christian theme park. That is what they want. That is what it is all about. Not saving little fetuses. Not protecting life. But destroying lives. Controlling lives. Dictating every single fucking detail of life. It's in Exodus, it's in Deutoronomy, it's in Leviticus, people!!!
Now, we know what we are fighting against. We know what we are fighting for. Now, we gotta fight!
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Vamp Lit: 'The Dead in Love' by Theophile Gautier
If you're looking for a good bedtime story, then the lush and luxurious world of 19th century French literature is just the place for you to go. 'The Dead in Love' by French Romantic writer Theophile Gautier is a perfect sample.
It's an archetypal sex and vampire tale. Now, it isn't as directly erotic as the Brides' scene from 'Dracula' but it's subtlety is delicious. I mean really, how can you top three beautiful undead going down on you? If that's Victorian repression, then I don't want to see Victorian excess. Unfortunately, that scene ended in coitus interruptus--but still! Three! Three beautiful undead!
Anyway, the French being a little more badass than the anglos the sex in Gautier is consummated, even if it is off camera. In 'The Dead in Love,' Gautier has written the script for the male fantasy: average guy attracts unconditional and exclusive love of a beautiful sex goddess. Add the dark edginess of female vampirism (with all that sucking sucking sucking...) and meeeowww you've got one hell of a story. You can't beat porn that pretends it's literature.
In sum, the tale is told by an aging priest trying to warn a younger one about the dangers of temptation. Yes, the irony. It is never good practice for someone like a priest to direct someone's attention to the delightful world of utter and complete sexual abandon and fulfillment (that's my job!). But then, that is the point here. So, our priest details how he caught the eye of the most beautiful and sexy woman in the world just at the moment he took his vows. How this woman hunted him down to administer last rites to her, which somehow helped her defeat the grave to return as a...vampire! To feed on him and give him every possible pleasure at the same time. Ah but sadly, an eternity was very short and the priest's killjoy superior destroys the vampire Clarimonde. The end.
Gautier's allusions are sometimes delightful, sometimes puzzling. Clarimonde has apparently died more than once. Wonderful foreshadowing and mood-setting. Ah, the mystery that is Clarimonde. So gorgeous she can defy death. But Clarimonde's blood drinking is presented in two ways: she feeds on our protagonist after he cuts himself accidentally in a way that suggests that she doesn't know that she needs to do this to survive; and she regularly seems to drug our protagonist so she can feed on him. Yes, I know. It's confusing.
The most memorable quote from the story is both a truism and beautiful. "Love is stronger than death." Ok, not original but Gautier's perving it up. He isn't talking about sweet Christian soul-humping kinda love. No, this is dirty decadent I wanna lick your shitty bunghole and cream myself kinda love. "Love is stronger than death...and by the way I wanna drink your blood, baby. You into it?" Fuck, yeah! Bite me! Eat me! Drink me! Just don't let me turn back into a goddam priest!
Read on, gothlings!
It's an archetypal sex and vampire tale. Now, it isn't as directly erotic as the Brides' scene from 'Dracula' but it's subtlety is delicious. I mean really, how can you top three beautiful undead going down on you? If that's Victorian repression, then I don't want to see Victorian excess. Unfortunately, that scene ended in coitus interruptus--but still! Three! Three beautiful undead!
Anyway, the French being a little more badass than the anglos the sex in Gautier is consummated, even if it is off camera. In 'The Dead in Love,' Gautier has written the script for the male fantasy: average guy attracts unconditional and exclusive love of a beautiful sex goddess. Add the dark edginess of female vampirism (with all that sucking sucking sucking...) and meeeowww you've got one hell of a story. You can't beat porn that pretends it's literature.
In sum, the tale is told by an aging priest trying to warn a younger one about the dangers of temptation. Yes, the irony. It is never good practice for someone like a priest to direct someone's attention to the delightful world of utter and complete sexual abandon and fulfillment (that's my job!). But then, that is the point here. So, our priest details how he caught the eye of the most beautiful and sexy woman in the world just at the moment he took his vows. How this woman hunted him down to administer last rites to her, which somehow helped her defeat the grave to return as a...vampire! To feed on him and give him every possible pleasure at the same time. Ah but sadly, an eternity was very short and the priest's killjoy superior destroys the vampire Clarimonde. The end.
Gautier's allusions are sometimes delightful, sometimes puzzling. Clarimonde has apparently died more than once. Wonderful foreshadowing and mood-setting. Ah, the mystery that is Clarimonde. So gorgeous she can defy death. But Clarimonde's blood drinking is presented in two ways: she feeds on our protagonist after he cuts himself accidentally in a way that suggests that she doesn't know that she needs to do this to survive; and she regularly seems to drug our protagonist so she can feed on him. Yes, I know. It's confusing.
The most memorable quote from the story is both a truism and beautiful. "Love is stronger than death." Ok, not original but Gautier's perving it up. He isn't talking about sweet Christian soul-humping kinda love. No, this is dirty decadent I wanna lick your shitty bunghole and cream myself kinda love. "Love is stronger than death...and by the way I wanna drink your blood, baby. You into it?" Fuck, yeah! Bite me! Eat me! Drink me! Just don't let me turn back into a goddam priest!
Read on, gothlings!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)