Thursday, May 03, 2007

softcore

this is some pretty exciting reading. but as tempting though it may be, and as obvious as it may be, do not seek to breach the veil of anonymity which enables artistic discourse.
I.
She reveals herself only for that moment, before she begins her struggle with the bedclothes to reenter reality. Her modesty is of the true innocent, who has lived her life in the World of surfaces, and she is used to fabric, not flesh, against her body. But that is in the unthinkable future. Now she is the Ideal Body, an attainable Ideal Form that Plato in all his sexlessness could never imagine. The physicality overwhelms me, that flesh could be so smooth.
II.
Her body stretches out beneath me, filling all senses. Her body is brown and my hands are pale. A deep glowing brown that is hers alone, pacifying. Hers is the true tan to which the white world aspires, the skin that is the origin and home of all skin, that we crave to return to. That white women dream of while cocooned in ultraviolet blue radiation. The touchable form of unbleached humanity.
III.
Her body stretches out beneath me, filling a material plane that I float above, immersed in physicality.
IV.
She is alive.
V.
She counts her birthmarks, and gives me a sightseeing tour of her body. She thinks they are what make her body hers. Each one is in the perfect spot, where no human artist would dream of locating them. There is one dark spot in the shape of a tree hollow on her right palm. There is one on the inside curve of her right breast. One above and to the right of her navel. The rest are secret, mine alone.
VI.
Her hair flows like the black waterfall where the thick waters of the Lethe leap off the side of the world to plunge into darkness.
VII.
It flows over her ears, who sit as small kings ruling over a chessboard kingdom. They are tiny, perfectly round disks set in a round clearing. They are guarded on all sides by hair. On the foreground, revealed when she pulls back her hair, her sideburns, begun at the origin of all hair, wispy.
VIII.
I am entirely fixated on her face; that is all that matters. It defies language and has no place upon this page. Here lies the punctum; the personal beauty after which art flies in pursuit, but never reaches.
IX.
Her collarbones erupt from her neck like flying buttresses to support the roundness of her shoulders. All men know that the unifying principle of beauty is the shoulder, especially when revealed from above. This curve foils that of her breasts, creates a nonlinear universe.
X.
Her breasts reveal an atavistic innocence that haunts her personality, and that is why she is never satisfied with them. That innocence, which partly drew me to her, which I have brought to maturity, but not robbed her of. She can never know that it exists: innocence is only named after its departure.
XI.
It as if all the dusk of her skin spreads out from the concentrated deep brown of her nipples.
XII.
Her hipbones write songs against my body, they jut out of her flat stomach like mountains rising out of the valley. They gesture inwards.
XIII.
Hers is the modesty of the world, her vagina shows itself only for the vital moment, like the aperture of a camera, all-seeing. Because it is endless, and perhaps I will be lost among its folds and never find my way out.
XIV.
The surface is a cluster of black wire. It has the strength, the integrity of sandpaper. But it inhales, pulling my writing fingers inward. This layer demands to be left behind. Each fiber curves inward on itself, like the micro-elements of the hard half of Velcro, it grips, it holds. It marks the territory beneath it, it is the exoskeleton of depth.
XV.
The layers lick upwards, spreading silk into my fingers. They are saturated, bathing in themselves. I dream of incorporating myself into them, to become another fold in the wet maze. I feel the central fin that leads upwards and ends in an understated button, which cleaves the middle depth into a duality, canyons through which I glide. This part of her body teaches me subtlety and grace, removes me from the ferocious obligation of penetration.
XVI.
But it was always there, her depths. There is a sudden drop off beneath her, which she never understood. Sometimes I think I understand this cavity better than her, that I teach her about it’s potential. Sometimes I think that I can only bow to its power over me, that its truth is beyond both of us.
XVII.
Deep inside her is revealed an internal self completely absent from the male race. I have long sought to wander, to thrust myself over the earth and spread over its surface, to explore, to adventure. But the journey she takes me on is inward, through her eyes, through her concavity. She is earth itself, formed itself with layers upon layers of cooled fire, fusion, the furnace remains inside, unknowable to its parasitic inhabitants. Her guidance is selfless, she allows me into ontological realms forbidden to men alone.
XVIII.
Here, I exist as a beast, to penetrate, gently. She exists as the ground, to push back, gently. I can dream all I want of renouncing the soft violence inherent in my phallus, but I cannot. Hers is the level of peace, of pure existence, mine is the burden that patriarchal society has born for History. It is Manifest Destiny and the Triangle Trade, and I am powerless against History.
XIX.
It is absence, her deepest depths. And absence controls my consciousness, desire unfulfilled entirely poison, and I cannot be with her ever again at these moments. From here comes the Darkness, the great Lack that lies at the inevitable core of love, of my love.
XX.
But more often comes satiation; I fill her depths and complacency gives way to play, childlike truth, and eventually sleep. She brings my beast to closure, brings me to her own level, peace. Innocent being. And for this I depend on her, this is the addiction beyond rehabilitation, this is rehabilitation itself.

17 Comments:

Blogger Sturgeon General said...

I tried to think of an adjective to describe the passage of writing here. After a little lazy deliberation, having brushed aside the romantic, frustrated descriptors "beautiful," "luscious," "lascivious," "gorgeous" - and feeling like a hackneyed New York Times film critic - the word, or, rather, the non-word "conculminant" dropped out of my mouth.
It's an ugly amalgam which shoulders a barren, dull, exiled meaning, but I couldn't describe this piece with a precious phrase, lest it offset the tenuous balance with which it seduces me painfully near, and at times sinfully onto its tightrope.
I feel the piece fully, and appreciate the gentle pulls between bestiary, bestiality, Cartesianism, schizophrenia, annihilation, sensual whimsy, love. Again that's putting it madly, insipidly, but the unachieved subversion of XVIII strikes a hinge within me and rings harmonic.
I think the last three sections in fact have an incredible rhythm and insight, from undesired desire (unhappy empowerment), from skeletal lack, from playful vibrance.
I'm interested in what a female would respond to this.
ps. Face as "punctum": an overwhelmingly interesting note (a bit of personal punctum there from my selfish enjoyment of Barthes) - a face is the place of the body most read, most scrutinized - and yet, like the photograph, it is also the site of unintended excess, the liberatory un-meaning.
Beautiful, luscious, lascivious, gorgeous.

12:08 PM  
Blogger Jed said...

you're smart. That comment made me feel that the piece was successful. Can we talk about what 'conculminant" means?

12:26 PM  
Blogger Sturgeon General said...

Conculminant: Having scaled the peak, he found himself waiting there yet, frozen over.

2:42 PM  
Blogger Sturgeon General said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

2:45 PM  
Blogger Inga said...

there are a lot of well-written bits in here, and i'm glad you've formatted it the way you have. i'm not sure how i feel about the content, though. i'll throw out some thoughts, which may or may not be relevant to what you're trying to do with this piece -- and i'm not quite sure what that is yet.

you essentially paint a picture of this She -- X, we'll say -- as a beautiful, modest, innocent woman whose purpose is to provide a "ground" for the speaker to push against and to guide him to some sort of peace. you contend that X knows less about herself than the speaker presumes to know ("that innocence, which partly drew me to her,... She can never know that it exists.") I find it striking that there is no mention anywhere of any desire or pleasure on the part of X. I also find it interesting that your description of her actually emphasizes what might be read as her reluctance or indifference, rather than excitement. i wonder if your description of X approximates how she would describe herself -- would it bother you if your descriptions didn't match up? i hesitate to use this word, but i feel that you've almost reduced X to the status of "recepticle."

i'm bothered by this phrase "the ferocious obligation of penetration." the "violence inherent in my phallus." i do get what you're getting at, or at least i think that i do. but i struggle with what is implied here. the term violence implies violation, often accompanied by injury, pain, damage. you describe penetration as "ferocious," which to me implies malicious intent. i'm wondering how we get from the phallus/penetration to all this ferocious violence. it seems to me that consensual, mutually-desired sex acts necessarily lack violence, because no one is being violated. it seems that the concept of violence here functions merely to mirror the concepts of innocence and lack of desire. were the penetration fully desired by each party involved, why on earth would the word "obligatory" ever present itself on this page? and why does this mention of obligation somehow seem to start to justify an argument for sexual assault? if you were to wipe out the notion of innocence to begin with (what do you even mean by "innocence?"), i think all of the violence would just slide off the page into oblivion.

so why does all of this bother me so much in the piece? (i'd like to make clear that i don't mean in any way to insult the speaker, X, or the speaker's relationship with X). it bothers me because i think that the writer's intent is truly to honor and pay homage to this X, and yet I find a lot of what the text and tone say to be demeaning, not only to women in general, but to X in particular. i'm trying to figure out how to make sense of this disparity, and i just keep coming back to the idea that something needs to be made more explicit one way or another. i'd love more description of *X*, rather than just *your* physical experience of X. i'd love more discussion of what you mean by innocence, what you mean by violence, how these fit together. i'd really like to hear more about this line, "it is absence, her deepest depths" -- huh? absence of what? absence for whom? there is certainly no anatomical absence... i realize that these sorts of discussions might not be what you want to include, but i'd at least like to know what you think about them... maybe you could talk a little about what your intent is? i'm really really curious. i'd also be interested to hear what X has to say about the piece.... you know, if X in fact exists and has the opportunity to read it...

anyway, i hope that all of this doesn't take away from the fact that you've come up with a nicely written piece here... would love to hear more thoughts from all of you.

12:42 AM  
Blogger Inga said...

oh, i forgot to mention that a big question that arises for me is, what does X get out of the sexual encounter with the speaker? the speaker lists many ways in which he benefits from sex with X, yet we're left in the dark with regards to X's interests, motives, needs, desires.

also, can we talk about the race thing? the white world aspires to brown skin? for me, this needs to be addressed more to make it work. it's a big thing to say, and it stands out for me as something that raises far more questions than it answers. i'm not sure what it's doing there.

12:51 AM  
Blogger Inga said...

also, i realize that that was a pretty harsh crit. i'm not sure if some of it was inappropriate, so please tell me if it is. i'll gladly apologize.

10:19 AM  
Blogger Jed said...

I'm glad it bothered you so. That makes it more interesting, and I also think that sex isn't quite as simple for everyone as it is for you. allow me to explain.

'obligatory,' because my body will not allow me to exist without sex. It will not let me sleep, or love, until it has been satiated. 'obligatory' because sex can be high tension--any man who has dealt with an instance of whisky-dick can tell you of the feeling of faliure. Sex is performative, and stage fright can happen.

the thing was haistily written, so anything that you thought needs expansion or clairification definately does need that.

sex begins for most people with pain inflicted by the man's phallus. For us, it began as an act of sacrifice and selfless love on her part. Since, it has evolved into mutual enjoyment and mutual need, the kind of pure consentualism you speak of. Also, you spoke of racial difference, which i'll talk about later, but it is important to not that she comes from a culture which forbids her pleasure, and there was a process of overcoming that. (that would be a good thing to talk about, in the piece but it's pretty hard to discuss because it's not familiar). You're right that I should be describing her more and me less. But I'm pretty bad about writing about other than me. I feel an ontological unceratainty, and a lack of ability to express what I do not know.

That violence is inherant in the phallus is a huge problem for me, too, it's really disturbing. But it's a psychological reality at least in myself that exists and I must address it in order to overcome it.

The one thing that I think I should not have elaborated upon is the skin color difference. You should try not to see this as a racial difference, but rather in terms of aesthetics. I'm not attracted to her brown skin because it marks 'the exotic' or some shit, but rather because her brown skin is beautiful. In the end, there's very little to say about racial difference. A lot to say about cultural difference, but that's a whole other issue.

thanks for putting so much thought and feeling into your comment. That's why this blog is valuable.

10:27 AM  
Blogger Jed said...

I'm going to address these issues in a way that will infuriate you more in my longer essay, which will be posted soonish.

10:35 AM  
Blogger Inga said...

oh, i definitely don't think that you need to elaborate upon racial difference... sorry if that came out wrong on my part. what i think stands out is that one comment about white people aspiring to be dark skinned. it's just a big blanket statement that i don't think serves a purpose here. if you made it a more personal statement, it wouldn't bother me... i don't think you need to discuss race, but i think if you're going to make a statement like that about race, it needs more explanation or it just stands out too much. to me, anyway. i'd like to know what other people think about that. as far as the other stuff, i now understand more of what you meant by obligatory, and i want that to sneak in somewhere to the text itself, i think it helps clarify a lot. i guess when it comes down to it, what's missing for me here is the personalization of everything. when you describe the way sex began for you and X, i like that description. it doesn't bother me because it's not attempting to say anything about anyone else's sex. so it may sound silly, in a sense, with regards to what you've written here, because on one level it's very personal, clearly about you and this one person, in one sort of progression of experience. i think it's the lack of detail about X, her namelessness, her facelessness, her utter lack of characterization that makes it all more general. i think that filling in those blanks would help bring this to such a personal level that i wouldn't feel the need to pick at what it says about *women* -- because it would more clearly speak only about one woman. but see when you say something like "sex begins for most people with pain inflicted by the man's phallus," that's when i get furious. what the fuck do you know about sex for most people? what are you basing such a statement on? popular media? an old wives' tale? i don't know how sex begins for "most people," but i wish you wouldn't presume to.

2:16 PM  
Blogger Tongue-tied Lightning said...

The following is a response to the comments preceding.

"Desire unfulfilled entirely poison."

Violence implies violation, but a violation by what standard?

"Ferocious obligation of penetration." See Aristotle. Blood is poison, water is poison, breath is poison, semen is poison. All are absinth (falsified from the original, stripped of its 'officalizing' final letter, the e, the vowel which rounds out the original word but no longer exists on the bottle's label), wormwood, the parousiacal return, the return already become, always become: implicit and immediate advent is the eternal return (the eternal copulation) of every moment and every intentional act.

But does an animal rape. Is a boar capable of malicious intent. Is malice a vice or a state of dementia.

And the questioning is precisely on the nature of consent. What can consent be, given poison. (Stated logically: given the premise 'Poison', what can we still say about 'Consent'? Are there creature actions and moral actions, separable and distinct?)

Try not to be confused by the consubstantiation of desire and obligation. There is nothing contradictory in it. We wish, and we also do. We will, and we will-do. (Double sense of the word 'will': conative but also responsible, responsive, instincted).

You are right to wonder about innocence. I don't really think it's a fair term to use. And it does give a sense of 'not yet harmed,' meaning, when no longer innocent, one is violated. And that's too Christian a way to think sexuality.

What you are looking for, Inga, is an ethical piece of writing. But poisonous thoughts are unethical thoughts; that is, they stem from the blood, rather than from 'the understanding,' 'the reasoning faculty,' 'the moral syndicate.'

And this is why you are right when you say there is no anatomical absence. It has a merely emphatic existence, the absence Jed talks about - it appears to us in staccatoed pigments, and the writer seeks to replicate this.

I think he would be right to leave the race aspect as it is. Beauty was the key word. Historicity tells us that beauty does not actually exist, that there are only social practices perpetuated by specific economic and societal patterns of behavior and policy. Jed disagrees, and he does so because he sees beauty first and foremost: one can only express this from the standpoint of the monograph, the singular, the immediately perceived, the individual ocular. Beauty is not captured in photographs, not transmitted in films or imitated in visual art: it is in the eye, as the saying has it; it is within us as a presence, as the absence of an absence, the filling of veins and a nervous palpitation of sublimity and organization. Literature becomes organic. It begins to trace out the lines of capillaries and excitations; it moves as fingers move, as arms and shoulders move; it calls the shoulder the locus of beauty (Not even the neck, the bough of beauty's upsidedown human arbor!) 'Form and content merge': such, art has been stating and restating for decades now. It has become our obsession, stultifying in its lumenescence, blinding because of the pleasure it presents to us. Perhaps there will be a new genre of aesthetic expression. Call it organicism. Books will begin to beat as chests do, they will digest with written organs, they will grow by a principle of internal generation. They will convey the same 'arrangement of incidents' that tragedy, according to Aristotle, was capable of doing for the Greeks.

I like your work Jed.

6:25 PM  
Blogger Inga said...

that was a beautiful comment, and quite insightful. you're right, what i'm looking for is an ethical piece of writing -- or, more accurately, I dislike this piece because I find it contradictory to my worldview on several accounts, *and* it doesn't feel sufficiently challenging (of my worldview) to make that experience worthwhile for me. i'll say again though (and perhaps i never said it clearly before), i don't think that makes it a bad piece of writing. in fact, i think it's very well written. I just don't like it much. I still think that a few expansions would make it a much stronger piece of writing, so that, for instance, i wouldn't be making incorrect assumptions about what you mean by certain words or phrases, but rather understanding what you're saying and where you're coming from. granted, i'm a biased reader, and i'll jump to my own conclusions. but every reader is biased and will jump to his/her own conclusions, and i think a touch more clarity would benefit the piece. i think 'lightning raises a good point, that the question must not be merely what is consent, but what is consent given poison? i'm a bit lost on what we mean by poison here, though... when you say "see aristotle," do you mean his philosophy in general or your entry above? (i haven't gotten to reading it yet). i'd like to get a better sense of what each of you means by "poison."

9:31 AM  
Blogger Tongue-tied Lightning said...

I was being very vague, and was certainly extrapolating from Jed's piece on the basis of what I liked about it, and how his words described a thought by which I have been lately interred. 'See Aristotle' refers to what I posted. And I agree that the piece could do more than it does.

Poison: in my last comment I was pulling a lot of things together that I've been working out in my own writing. Read Revelation- that's where I'm taking my idea of poison from. I am interested in the connection between eschatology (the study of final ends) and teleology (the study of final aims). With Aristotle, there are several functions of the soul. The soul, in his account, is a general vitality that inhabits all living things. This vitality has the function of self-perpetuation through nutrition and reproduction, and in addition to this, it can partake of some among the hierarchy of additional soul capacities (perception, desire, motion, thought). Aristotle conceives happiness for humans to consist in 'activity in accordance with the best excellence.' The best excellence, the thing that is supposedly best about the human soul, is the capacity for rational thought. I'm not interested in debating this. I am more interested in the fact that humans share in the same first principle as every other living creature. This first principle is the nutritive aspect, the self-perpetuating aspect - which Aristotle connects with a desire on the part of living things to partake of the eternal and divine. This is what I want to know about: why do we reproduce? Why do we make art? For the same reason, if Aristotle is right. Immortality can never be ours, and still it is our foremost goal.

This is where poison comes in. I take the fall of the star of wormwood, as depicted in Revelation, to be the poisoning of earth by a particular thought or idea. But this is the question: is the fact of sexual reproduction itself poison, or is it just a poisonous thought which takes hold of us, distinct from the fact of sex, which makes the whole enterprise something distasteful and unpalatable?

Consent, ethics, are on a different plane from this. They have nothing to do with what we're talking about, in fact. If you are looking for an ethical answer in your everyday life, then you have already accepted your instincts and drives for what they are. You do not question your humanity; you want to know how your humanity can be preserved, how the humanity of others can best be protected and maintained. Poison is to fall off of this stage, to look downwards upon the fundamental principles of mundaneity (wake, eat, clean oneself, ingest stimulant, go off to one's vocation, spend eight hours, interact peaceably and correctly, return, take care of one's loved ones, and on the right nights and with the right other, copulate for the perpetuation of the species). Poison is to be incapable of an ethical inquiry. It is to accept none of one's premises, though premises they are, and society grants these as given before anything so absurd as 'human rights.' Sex, work, entrance into society, peace among one's neighbors: these are our givens. Poison is to feel that those are filthy and undesirable terms for life. Poison is to seek art as some sort of escape, some sort of secondary existence in which to exercise the fantasy which one cannot find the space for to enact in reality. Poison is also to be futile, to see futility in the escape, to see it moreover in the given activities, the nutritive aspect, and it is ultimately to be unhappy. Finally: poison does not know what it wills, where it will go, what it will do (again, the double form of 'willing'), and it feels disgusted with both itself and the range of choices presented to it. Jed has been reading Rimbaud, so he's full of good poisonous proddings. The point, I think, is to be aware of this possibility, and to avoid stepping off of the stage completely. There are a lot of ways to escape, but none of them are desirable. The worst moments of poison are when schizophrenia seems a worthwhile endeavor. We shouldn't recommend that to anyone. But there is something to having a little poison in one's life, to being conscious of the possibility. It's the only honest perspective, in a way, and it shows how little we really want honesty for the health of our minds. At this point I'm rambling. Jed, give us your essay sometime soon.

4:11 PM  
Blogger Tongue-tied Lightning said...

Sorry to go on will all that. I got this far astray from Jed's piece.

5:22 PM  
Blogger Jed said...

Get astray, get astray. we ought to stray as far from this piece as possible. In all senses.

I was enthralled in your analysis, esp. in the poison. I may now use that word incessantly. I think you nailed it, some of what I was trying to describe; I'm not happy with the sexual psychology I have--I think I inherited it from somewhere, from society, but can't pinpoint where, but I think there are elements that run deep in the collective consciousness. Especially the link between the phallus and violence. It's inescapable, we all hate it on an ethical level, but that's not sufficient to address it.

That's not enough of a response to your thoughts, just a little tangent comment.

But because of all of you guys, this little lascivious piece, obsessed only with surface, that I wrote in total space of probably an hour, now has meaning. The three of you have made the thing have significance. And that's pretty cool, a useful thing for us to be doing. I think. Others would probably say it's a waste of time, but I'm on board.

10:07 AM  
Blogger Tongue-tied Lightning said...

let's give it a try with the aristotle stuff!

2:28 PM  
Blogger Inga said...

i hope to get to the aristotle soon, and back to this conversation. but finals, fuck.

12:42 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home