|
May 21, 2003
I think that our dear Janet has a thing about sex as well as intellectuals and tolerance junkies.
She reads this and has a rave about unrestrained liberation, self-indulgence, nonstop self-gratification all around her. The 1968ers are in her sights as are the Sex and the City generation of women whose sexual encounters are numerous and guilt-free. It will play well with the conservatives across the nation. A very different reading can be found here The response by Ken Parish is here
Well, you can say one thing about Janet. She ain't no liberal. Since she has nothing but scorn for the "intellectual hucksters of laissez-faire sex" she would have no time for the Marquis de Sade. Still, judging by the fuss, acts of sexual transgression still have the power to subvert. This review by Guy Rundle in the Sydney Morning Herald locates Millett's text in the libertine tradition of the Marquis de Sade the Story of O and Bataille
Its just sex Janet. Just the memoirs of someone who enjoys a lot of penetrative sex and desires to satisfy her intellectual and professional curiosity written by someone who is a member of the intelligentsia---- an intelligent art critic----a hedonist and a sexual adventurer?
An extract of The Sexual Life of Catherine M can be found here. A list of reviews can be found here
|
It must be nice to have your brain farts published in a national newspaper.
I'm still trying to figure out what Ken means by 'hard left' and the connection to prudery and humourlessness. I'm certain that some people would class myself on the hard left, but Alex Comfort who wrote "The Joy of Sex" was an anarchist, a label i can generally agree with. Or is he only talking about various Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties? Having had to deal with dsp members telling me that i shouldn't make fun of work (more accurately paid employment) and the reasons people do it. apparently you can't lampoon work, because that is criticising the workers, you can't even do it if you are a worker and the person who is telling you that isn't. i could understand that characterisation.