Sometimes I feel an utter failure at communication. I don't get this feeling in the real world, just when I voice an opinion on SG. And I have no way of judging how my attempts at interaction fail since I don't get responses. Just new threads. Really, plants are better for interaction than this, if I over or under water one it will drop leaves...
Read More
Read More
VIEW 3 of 3 COMMENTS
Talking loud, saying nothing, my name is nobody and you might as well be William Blake.
I have this vision and it is of a bright day,
Spider web lace holds up the corners of the sky.
The path is muddy you are barefoot and we are walking.
I hear birds in chorus, I hear water.
The stream is cold,
the great stones are warm in the sun.
You undress and I am watching from the corner of my eye.
You...
Read More
kenyon:
did you write this? it's good.
lassie:
This is quite nice, as are others in your blog. As poems cannot be reduced to paraphrase or analysis, I can say no more, which is a sign, don't ya know, that I'm probably responding.
Do you remember that short poem you wrote about the woman (L.) staring at the man's (your) food and the man staring at the cat in her lap? I love that poem. Will you post it, pretty please? It is as near to perfect as such a thing can be.
Do you remember that short poem you wrote about the woman (L.) staring at the man's (your) food and the man staring at the cat in her lap? I love that poem. Will you post it, pretty please? It is as near to perfect as such a thing can be.
Supposedly, men respond more to visual cues and women do not. I don't get that. I don't even know where I heard it. Is that supposed to mean that women won't look at pictures when they masturbate? When I look through my favorites I see a good selection of photos of women's behinds and I see good range of personality shots: head shots, portraits. Personally,...
Read More
Read More
VIEW 3 of 3 COMMENTS
kenyon:
i agree. with emotional vulnerability or entanglement, there are times to dive in and times to abstain. same as with lots of other things, i guess . . .
just fyi, i have both personality portrait-type shots as well as (my version of) money shots in my favorite pics too. i always feel a little weird archiving the money shots. then i get over it.
just fyi, i have both personality portrait-type shots as well as (my version of) money shots in my favorite pics too. i always feel a little weird archiving the money shots. then i get over it.
lassie:
"Supposedly, men respond more to visual cues and women do not. I don't get that. I don't even know where I heard it. Is that supposed to mean that women won't look at pictures when they masturbate?"
"Do women really fantasize about having sex in expensive shoes?"
These are only apparently separate questions.
I never in my life have looked at pictures of a man while masturbating. Not one time. So, I would have to say the answer to number 1 is, "Yes." I've had crushes on gorgeous men and crushes on ugly men. The crushes on ugly men happened to be the most incurable and profound and sexually charged. How could that be if "visual cues" mattered as much to women?
When a woman makes love there is no equivalent to the male gaze. There is no female gaze as such. What there is, however, is fantasy about having sex in expensive shoes. So the answer to number 2 is, "Yes, absolutely."
Why these questions are related: remember that Jimi Hendrix song, in which he sings, "You just want to see me watch you." Well, that is it! A woman looks to the man to see how she herself is reflected there in his gaze, what effect she is successfully refining, demolishing, rebuilding, renovating. That means a woman's experience of attraction and lust is dialogical, not at all visual. In a sense, she makes love to her own trace in the exchange-time, the residue of how she prepared herself to be for him in order to open a space, a gap, that had to be traversed, initially by him, as narrative, dialogue, history. Arousal is situational, not visual. That is what I was lamely trying to explain last week when I was saying female sexuality is all about power, the power to have an effect. In my twenties, and even in my thirties, the get-off was being able to attract; the bodily fluid culmination was largely irrelevant. Stiletto to the throat and all that. The shoes.
Therefore, to me, erotic literature has always been more arousing than pictures of men. Aesthetically, I'd rather look at pictures of women (they are prettier). Pictures of acts sometimes do a trick, but only because one's she-mind is mentally transcribing the text that accompanies, the story, the situation, the specific history.
If a woman feels ugly, she will not come, even if her partner is a hunky movie star. She will not even lie down. Shoes matter.
"Do women really fantasize about having sex in expensive shoes?"
These are only apparently separate questions.
I never in my life have looked at pictures of a man while masturbating. Not one time. So, I would have to say the answer to number 1 is, "Yes." I've had crushes on gorgeous men and crushes on ugly men. The crushes on ugly men happened to be the most incurable and profound and sexually charged. How could that be if "visual cues" mattered as much to women?
When a woman makes love there is no equivalent to the male gaze. There is no female gaze as such. What there is, however, is fantasy about having sex in expensive shoes. So the answer to number 2 is, "Yes, absolutely."
Why these questions are related: remember that Jimi Hendrix song, in which he sings, "You just want to see me watch you." Well, that is it! A woman looks to the man to see how she herself is reflected there in his gaze, what effect she is successfully refining, demolishing, rebuilding, renovating. That means a woman's experience of attraction and lust is dialogical, not at all visual. In a sense, she makes love to her own trace in the exchange-time, the residue of how she prepared herself to be for him in order to open a space, a gap, that had to be traversed, initially by him, as narrative, dialogue, history. Arousal is situational, not visual. That is what I was lamely trying to explain last week when I was saying female sexuality is all about power, the power to have an effect. In my twenties, and even in my thirties, the get-off was being able to attract; the bodily fluid culmination was largely irrelevant. Stiletto to the throat and all that. The shoes.
Therefore, to me, erotic literature has always been more arousing than pictures of men. Aesthetically, I'd rather look at pictures of women (they are prettier). Pictures of acts sometimes do a trick, but only because one's she-mind is mentally transcribing the text that accompanies, the story, the situation, the specific history.
If a woman feels ugly, she will not come, even if her partner is a hunky movie star. She will not even lie down. Shoes matter.
There is such a thing as too much pink.
"History is made at night. Character is what you are in the dark."
The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension.
The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension.
I guess I should mention, that the prints and verse found in this journal (meager as they may be) are the work of WhiteWing Publications
.
. 
kenyon:
i love the idea of 20 year old film just developed now. digital cameras can't offer that magical element.
VIEW 3 of 3 COMMENTS
kenyon:
double effing post
[Edited on May 28, 2006 1:51PM]
[Edited on May 28, 2006 1:51PM]
kiora:
Thank you so much for the comment on my set! 
I've found the best way to get new comments is to comment on other people's journals.
Don't sweat it. It's like a big experiment.