On Flirting: The Meeting of Eyes and Ayes and Is: Part I–Theory

Dear CF,

So enjoyed your last few posts which–as it happens–coincide with what I wanted to write you about anyway: flirting. I’ve conducted a smallish experiment and am eager to share the results with you.

But first, let me agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of the sexes’ attitudes toward pizzle and cooch instrumentality. Yes! Having read figleaf a bit, you’ve no doubt noticed that one of his major pet peeves is the “No Sex Class”–not just a population but a whole system built around the self-evident truth that men always want sex and women never do. That what is in fact being transacted across a room when people make eyes at each other is a tricksy rhetoric by which a man convinces a woman to let him do something to her that she doesn’t particularly want done.

Returning for a moment to the question of sexual fantasy, I’m going to offer a slight corrective to figleaf’s lucid cultural critique: wrongheaded as it is, I think this might, in fact, be the biggest unacknowledged fetish in Western culture. The pretense that women don’t want sex (or some sort of contact) is a HUGE fantasy that fires the imaginations and loins of the lusty, and it has the benefit of being sufficiently widespread (heh) that it doesn’t need Craigslist postings or special outfits to be enacted in bar after bar the world over.

Read more of this post

A Nerve Is A Nerve Is A Nerve

Back to the original conversation, my last post was a bit of a detour, I think you are right about the strange lack of real sex on the Internet.  I perused Figleaf’s website, and was charmed.  This also led me to a resource called Scarleteen, which has an amazingly articulate stance on teens and sex education.

It seems that with other representations of healthy sexuality, they are all particularly fierce.  Nerve.com, Dan Savage, the inquisitive ladies at Jezebel, all offer a sexuality that feels to me like a glossy version of the thing that I am supposed to want, much like reading makeup tips in Seventeen magazine, or perusing the Sephora catalogue.  I want them, but eyebrow gel and foundation primer elixirs have very little place in my actual life.

I do marvel at how open sexuality is in certain ways–that dildos and vibrators are now quite unshocking.  That sex stores are understood venues, always with an educated, helpful staff.   That  it is a fashionable expectation to spend $80 on sex accessories.  Good Vibes and Babeland and Smitten Kitten all offer this idea of sex as very fun health, fully accessible through the heightened pleasure of accoutrement.

Before venturing into the the sex wilderness, I had a good long time of walking in the desert (its own famous wilderness).  I went from zero to full throttle fairly quickly, and luckily at an age and mentality where that was exactly appropriate.  But, going so long with so little experiential information did leave me with a giant heap of expectations.  Every book I read since I was ten promised sex as THE MOMENT, the one time in life where things got as good as they would get as a human.  Sex was shown to be better than drugs, better than getting an award, and definitely better than any dessert that had “better than sex” as part of its title.  I really thought that  when I finally had sex I would understand ecstasy and  that I would see the capacity for joy in bodies.  I was ready to participate in what seemed to be the big prize of being an adult human.

And then, like most drugs, it was shocking that I had the ability to imagine something so much more divine than the real thing.  Pot makes my face itchy and I get slurry.  Booze makes me talk a lot, and the general physical effect is one of hyper-relaxation.  Cigarettes make me alert.  With all of those things, each their own little forbidden city where I imagined grand things before rolling around in them, my main reaction was “oh? I thought this would be more fun.”  The fun was there, it just wasn’t the fun I imagined before trying them.  And the fun was complicated by very mundane things (nausea, the luck of who you were with, money) and the normal limits of good feeling.   The same with sex (excusing nausea and money).  It was so weird to realize that it did feel good, but it wasn’t good in any new earth shattering way.  I hadn’t found a new strain of chemical in my brain.  Different nerves were firing, sure, but they were making the same brew in my brain.  There were no new colors of the universe revealed, no small death (and rebirth), and no uncontrolled tears (I honestly don’t understand the crying orgasm thing).

Which leads me to a scary part of writing about sex and not being ferociously sexual in the usually presented way–the worry that in revealing what I consider “real” and not postured, I am inviting a pity party from the sexually advanced and enlightened.  That it’s me, not them, and that my poo-pooing of all the glamor and accounts of unadulterated vigor (machinated or not) is my dearth, not theirs.

Also, Scarleteen has an amazing checklist for teens to see if they are ready to have sex, and it had a particularly insightful note about expectations in sex: “the less we expect, the more we often receive.”  This again made me think of the submissive/slave scenario you mentioned that was the most intense moment in the fella’s life, and the lieu of misery that many a hired/planned scenario might make.  And Christmas.

So, you were a nurse?

Yours,

CF

Penvy Is A Bad Word, I Swear I Know

Dear Millicent,

In a surprising gesture of affection, my cat has decided to take a nap on my back while I type.  It is really a gesture for warmth, but I am interpreting it as affection, and that she thinks of me as a really big cat.  Queen cat.

Onwards! As the wise have said since the early nineties, let’s talk about sex.  Speaking of sex, I was perusing Roth’s Portnoy’s Complaint today, and there is an early scene in the sex-addled book where the narrator is constantly masturbating, even jumping up from dinner complaining of a stomachache in order to go masturbate.   He’s thirteen, his parents’ are banging down the door of the bathroom, and his mother is desperately worried about the state of his “poopie,” because diarrhea has been his reason for locking the bathroom door.  The moment that grabbed my attention (by the way, all the verbs available to me seem overactive in this paragraph–I guess erections have that effect) was that he furiously finishes himself off mostly to prove to himself that while the rest of his life is controlled by his mother, he and his cock can do whatever they want.

And then I was reading on Jezebel today about how there is an argument that men suffer in marriage because they have to stifle their inner douchbaggyness. That they cheat and go to titty bars because their wives control the rest of their world.  This again seemed to be refuge in the autonomy of being able to stick a dick somewhere, or as jezebel so aptly says:

That cure, in fact, is to rebel against one’s wife or girlfriend as though she is his mother, lying and doing things that he himself knows are wrong and self-destructive, in order to prove that he is not ruled by anyone but his own penis and sense of self-entitlement.

And so, I realized how novel that idea was to me…the idea of the freedom and self assertion through the actual assertion (dare I say insertion) and pleasuring of a body part–that men feel their are in touch with their power through their prowess of penis (I know, I’m getting carried away).  What surprised me about this idea is that I couldn’t quite think of an equivalent as a lady.  My interpretation of my sexuality has usually been about granting access (even with oral sex), but never any power in what I could stick and where–never in what I could do to other people as much as what I could allow to be done to me.   Which has also led to much more worry about what could be done to me (part of the typical stance of caution and protection).  This sounds darker than I mean, but I have to say that it showed me a possible difference in ideas of male and female sexuality that I have accepted as normal.  Men might have anxiety about performance, and have to hide erections, but their joy in their body is power and immediate identity.   For women, it might be more about growth and acceptance, the joy in the body comes from exploration and a kind of self love (oh! how silly all language gets when masturbation is the topic!)…which seems like it is leading me to a little bit of penis envy…which I think is sloppy logic on my part.  What it comes down to is, I don’t think masturbation or rampant doing it is an ultimate “fuck you” to my lack of control.  A distraction, yes,  but an empowering bordering of my selfhood…not so much.

Speaking of penis envy, I was reading recently about somebody famous going on and on about how men are jealous of women because they can have babies, give life, all that stuff.  And yes, women can do those things, but it seemed hilarious to me that nobody famous ever said that men were jealous of women’s menstrual cycles (really, quite an important part of the whole power to give life thing).  Which is maybe why I find the ladyparts a less symbolic place for identity and sovereignty.  Is it because women are intimate with their bodies on a monthly basis at the unpleasurable demands of menstruation that we accept its vitality and work involved without making it the fulcrum of what we can do in the world?  It’s difficult to imagine a girl gleefully unwrapping a tampon and reveling in what she and her vagina are gonna do one day.    She can do things, and with her vagina, but the two just aren’t as hand in hand as boys and their pizzles. That’s right, I said it. Pizzle.

More thoughts shortly (all adjectives are also cracking me up in such close proximity to penis talk),

heh,

CF

Lo-lee-ta

Dearest,

In the midst of yet another migraine, I’m rereading Lolita and thinking about what happens when one becomes that (to Humbert Humbert, anyway) dull but desirous thing, a “handsome woman.” Bovine, large-bodied, with all the S-shapes curved and grown in. Tumescent, in fact. Off the pill, desire constitutes a persistent and prominent part of my life now. This isn’t an unwelcome development. It is, however, new. The estrogen-progesterone complex had neutralized fantasy and nuked not just the cycles of response in my organs and membranes, but also my sexual imagination.

I write to you, therefore, as a born-again sensualist who’s totally unfamiliar with the female sexual experience as narrated by various women-authored sites on the Internet. I’m thinking of Collegecallgirl, One D at a Time or even Tracie on Jezebel. These women have an impressive understanding of their own pleasure. They tend to report a kind of arousal I’m only barely acquainted with–instantly wet, eager and willing to participate in many acts I find unappealing, or better in theory than practice.

Read more of this post

Brief Interviews with Hideous Men

Dear CF,

I started the evening rereading “Brief Interviews” and felt convicted and abased, recognizing in myself too much of what the Depressed Person says. And you, dear friend, are the beleaguered Support System with whom I (i.e. the depressed person) try constantly to really truly literally “share,” to whom I reach out for a glimmer of connectedness, for whom I try to Be There. To see myself thusly has only exacerbated my isolation-feelings, my anguish, my sense of injury, my feelings of abandonment. I’m nothing but a cracked bundle of need, a pail of neuroses. I think my three therapists would agree.

In that story the therapist dies “without leaving any sort of note or cassette or encouraging final words for any of the persons and/or clients in his life.”

For a moment I fantasized about DFW being my fourth therapist and indulged the ghoulish question that first struck me when I heard about his suicide:


Did he leave a note?


At any rate he left a cassette, and you found it. You’re right. It may be eleven years old, but Charlie Rose’s interview of David Foster Wallace covers 80% of what we’ve talked about, minus the sex. And I mean that literally–every time women appear, it’s a negative for him. He’s unhappy or exasperated with their role in his artistic world, and the feeling seems mutual.

On Unforgiven:

What’s interesting is that I don’t know a single female who likes the film. Females think ‘Western?’ It stinks. And if you can get them to watch it, it’s not a western at all. It’s a moral drama. It’s Henry James, basically. It’s very odd.”

Charlie gets worked up about this, agrees, and adds that this is the greatest rift his girlfriend and he have ever had about a movie.

(And there’s Henry James, king of the tragedy of manners, large as life. In a Western, no less–the one genre he might be least expected to appear in. I may have to watch Unforgiven after all.)

Wallace is even less happy with feminists who interpret the length of his books as having to do the length of his dick. I don’t blame him. First, it’s not true. Secondly, it’s not surprising that he prickles. The stakes of that sort of criticism are higher for him than they are for most. Returning for a moment to the irony of our generation constituting a Demographic, nothing would be quite so humiliating, for the culminating practitioner of a particular brand of artistic self-awareness, than to be found guilty of a truly unconscious influence.

But the dick’s not totally off the table. The Chronicle published an article on “intellectual crushes”–the brainy attraction a student feels to a certain kind of teacher. If anything, it’s the organ responsible for this feeling, the “intellectual dick,” that is the Firecracker’s great preoccupation (and Wallace is one, make no mistake). The writers he mentions—Delillo, Barthelme, Barth, Pynchon—were all well-hung in this department, and are all regular recipients of the male Firecracker’s admiration and energy. This isn’t penis envy, which Freud reserved for girls, and which it is evident, I think, that I suffer from. But it’s close.

Wallace says Lynch’s obsession is “The unbelievably grotesque existing in a kind of union with the unbelievably banal.” This truly brilliant take on Lynch gestures, I think, at what appeals to the cerebral Male. Let’s drag Henry’s brother William into this and call the Firecracker’s fierce (and not unjustified) admiration for Lynch, Barth et al. what it is, at least in part: a drive. Earlier than sex, but post-pre-Oedipal. It’s tribal and does not easily admit women–let’s be frank, it works better without them. It’s the universal desire to get lost in the funhouse and wee vigorously into the Po-Mo Stream of Consciousness (sponsored, alas, by the Depend Adult Undergarment).

Urinal cakes, mirrors, death diapers and the sublime, all in a tidy package.
Read more of this post

Pocketful of Miracles: Instant Replay of Two Scenes

Just to start us off, two scenes that seemed especially noteworthy:

Winning the Prize for Weirdest Exchange:

Joy Boy: “Why should Steve Darcey give the New York territory to Dave the Dude?”
Darcey: “You his mouthpiece?’
Joy Boy: “Call me his doormat.”

The Dude: “All my friends are nine feet tall and all my friends make very bad doormats.”
Darcey (rants for a bit, then): “You’re a big fish in the little pond, but all of a sudden all the little ponds are drying up. That’s where the king comes in… I’m gonna push some of you poor little gaspin’ sharks back into the water. My water. Gonna cover the whole country. Deep water.”
The Dude: “Deep, huh? How deep?”


Standout Crazy-Ass Scene: the fight. (to which I must add [!!!] [??] and yowZA).

  • 0:39: Joy Boy’s trying to hire the agent to protect the Dude.
  • 0:40: Cop Guy: “Mr. B has a touch of malgamary?”
  • 0:41: The Dude runs in, grabs her by the arm and throws her on the bed, all the while brandishing a rolled-up piece of newspaper.
  • They wrestle in a totally unsexy but realistic way, she rolls off the bed. He grabs her shirt and tears it off.
  • “You ain’t walkin’ out on me, Queenie,” Dave the Dude says. “I’m Dave the Dude!”
  • “I ain’t walkin’…” as she crawls away from him to the chair.
  • He grabs her shoe. Flash of knicker.
  • She gets up and heaves an enormous eggplant-shaped lamp at him.
  • Agent guy collects the coins that come out of the slot machine in his hat, plops it on his head.
  • Joy Boy yells at him. He lifts his hat and the coins spill out.
  • Are we supposed to think Joy Boy’s comment that “they’re just playing house” means this is normal?
  • “You owe me one thing, Queenie, and I’m gonna collect, you hear me?” Then he says something about her head that I can’t catch.
  • 0:42–She runs back to the bed and he literally jumps up into the air and on top of her. He’s airborne for a brief moment. He looks like a gazelle.
  • They roll off and out of view.
  • Silence.
  • Joy Boy walks in, says, “Isn’t this place like the inside of a goat’s stomach?”

Maybe the weirdest bedroom scene I’ve ever seen.

Fondly,
Millicent

The Dance of the Seven Veils

Dear Carla Fran,

I have indeed watched all of Season 1 of Mad Men and I await your scintillating insights with bated breath! Joan! I’ve come round to your way of thinking. She is the most seductive human I’ve ever seen. The curves. The eyelashes! The smoldering simper. For his part, Don–despite the rage he rightly inspires–(or perhaps, and this is the more terrible possibility–because of it?) has inspired peculiar and distinctly unprogressive fantasies.

What do we do with this misguided nostalgia? How to find the eroticism without the other “-isms” that make the show so bleak? Help me, dear CF.

We talked a little about the absence of communication in these on-screen marriages, and I’ve been thinking since about the role of silence in relationships. What do we and don’t we say? To what extent is veiling a form of foreplay, and distance a turn-on? I wonder: Is the difference between eroticism and porn just emotional lingerie?

Fondly,
Millicent

PS–Forgive my temporary absence–I was away until Sunday, when a dear mutual friend (and unsuspected Connect-Four hustler) came to visit.