Speaking of orgasms, I came across another post on this blog regarding porn stars.
Oddly enough, I've started to become a bit of a porn connoisseur (in a way). I've watched some of the major porn from the 70s, and several from today.
It's mostly heterosexual porn, although sometimes there are girl-on-girl scenes. With the exception of one pegging scene (in "The Opening of Misty Beethoven"), these movies depict only the standard stuff: vaginal, oral and anal sex.
What I've noticed is that, while the standard of beauty may be diverse, mainstream porn both then and now is a very male-centric, submissive-female genre of film.
Despite all of the advances in women's rights, the working conditions for porn actresses and a (slight) decrease in the taboo nature of working in porn, this simple fact still remains: mainstream pornography objectifies women.
(For purposes of this discussion, let's only consider the most recent spate of porn that I've watched, made in the past 10 years. Also, please don't judge the DVD titles.)
The women in this specific genre of porn are depicted as "perfect" when submissive to their male co-stars ("The Perfect Secretary"), in need of fucking to advance their careers ("The Contractor") and in need of "punishment" (spanking) for their sexual desires (almost all porn movies).
Let me acknowledge first that all of these aspects and story lines have legitimate places. Domination and submission, sadomasochism and bartering sex are fine as part of the genre, but they have largely become the standard for the genre.
Which, in and of itself, would not be a problem either, except that it translates to borderline physical abuse of the women actors.
Cunnilingus in these movies is violent and mashing and when the actors fellate one another they gag and gurgle uncomfortably. From personal experience, I know that residual vaginal fluid and a palmful of spit does not pleasurable anal sex make. Sometimes even vaginas look too dry for gratifying consensual sex.
Sex is supposed to be fun and enjoyable for both (or all)parties. Whatever revs your engine is great. But I have yet to see porn (that I would watch and enjoy) that looks like everyone is truly being pleased by their partners.
John Cage has been called many things - a composer, a Music philosopher, a master. His work has challenged the very definition of music, posing a huge problem for listeners, but even more for critics.
Cage’s 4’33” is the epitome of a musical challenge to audiences, critics, and musicians. Consisting of three movements of “silence,” his 1952 composition instructs the performer to tacet for a total duration of four minutes and thirty-three seconds.
In its original form, it was only performed three times, each by pianist David Tudor. At its premiere in Woodstock, NY, people walked out. Quite obviously, such a piece is fraught with analytical difficulties.
James Pritchett, in his introduction to The Music of John Cage, says “the problem with treating Cage as a composer is clearly a problem with his work after 1951.” Pritchett asks how one can understand one of Cage’s randomly-made compositions, or chance operations. “To criticize it would be to criticize a random act; how does one judge the toss of a coin?”
Avoiding the obvious pitfalls of Pritchett’s question of criticism and its bearing on music’s existence, the heart of it comes later: “The way out of this dilemma has traditionally been to ignore the music and dwell upon ‘the ideas behind it.’”
So to begin an analysis of Cage’s “composition,” it is first necessary to view the work in its most “pure” form. Below is a performance by David Tudor:
Analytically, it seems impossible to address the technical or musical abilities of the performer. At least by conventional standards.
First, a traditional analysis operates under the premise that the performer is the source of the “music.” The performer is in control of the music. S/he is the gatekeeper of the composition, interpreting the composer’s instructions. Through the performer is the only way for the audience to experience music.
Second, for the audience to experience the music presupposes specific requirements for the audience and the venue. In this tradition, it is assumed that the audience and the venue merely exist, that they make no noise.
Finally, in a conventional style of analysis, the premise is that the performer produces sound. The composer creates a structure for the performer to make noise, with the assumption of silence from the space and the audience.
To analyze Cage’s work, however, we must rethink the roles of composer, performer, audience, and venue.
In 4’33”, the composer Cage has created instructions and a structure for the performer to interpret. The performer remains the gatekeeper, controlling the beginning and end of movements, as Tudor signified by opening and closing the piano lid. And in many ways the performer does produce sound. By directing the audience’s attention to the ambient sounds of the space, s/he is creating what the audience hears,
The only fundamental - and most important - difference in analysis is that Cage realizes that the “silence” of the audience and venue is an impossibility. They have the ability to create as much music as any performer making noise.
“There’s no such thing as silence,” said John Cage about the premiere (Kostelanetz 2003, 70). “What they thought was silence, because they didn’t know how to listen, was full of accidental sounds. You could hear the wind stirring outside during the first movement. During the second, raindrops began patterning the roof, and during the third the people themselves made all kinds of interesting sounds as they talked or walked out.”
With 4’33” Cage challenges the audience to listen in a way they never have before. The noise the audience makes are just as important as the noise the performer makes. Cage transforms a dead venue into a live sound space, a vital part of the composition.
This is what people continue to miss in the discussion of 4’33”. They still see it as an exercise in silence. They don’t listen to what is there, but rather they listen for what Cage said didn’t exist - silence. When that happens 4’33” becomes a gimmick.
Consider this performance by the BBC symphony orchestra:
The “announcers” create a situation for an expectation of silence. The conductor makes a mockery of the “technical” difficulty of the piece by wiping the sweat from his brow after the first movement. And the audience completely misses the point, by holding their breath during the movements and then making all their noise between the movements. Cage’s idea that the noise they make during the movements consists of the music has been lost in search of an impossibility.
Looking for silence leads to even more contrived attempts, like this “tutorial” (watch specifically around the 40 to 45 second mark):
This “performer” actually disregards the instructions of the composer when he “accidentally” makes a noise. It was actually frustrating for me to watch. The idea of “teaching” a piece like 4’33” is ridiculous. In fact, it could be argued that in order to “hear” 4’33” we must first unlearn how we listen to (or for) music.
Consider Cage’s own words on silence and music:
The music is within the structure of a place like Sixth Avenue. 4’33” takes the venue and makes it the instrument. So why does the venue need to be a concert hall?
A classmate proposed this idea once. She said that if the space was as much a part of the performance as anything, then the possibilities for structuring the “sound space” were relatively endless.
I explored this idea with a friend, by taking 4’33” onto the 1 train of the New York City subway system:
I think people largely ignored me during the performance. There is the chance, however, that one person in that car listened more intently to the surrounding sounds. If that happened, then Cage’s work (and my interpretation) has conveyed its message.
A composer has an idea behind her/his work, something s/he wants to say. Every composer is a “music philosopher,” attempting to reveal a higher truth to the listener. Some messages are easier to interpret. A Mozart or a Beethoven piece might easily evoke an emotion, but a piece like 4’33” challenges the very definition of music. The philosophy is more readily apparent, but runs deeper.
I'm sure everyone has heard by now that Vice President Joe Biden, in front of an open mic, said to President Barack Obama that the healthcare reform bill is "a big fucking deal." This in turn has sparked minor outrage at gaffe-prone Biden and even questions of an FCC fine for his fleeting expletive.
Aside from my firm belief that "decency standards" are, for the most part, unnecessary, the fact that Biden said "fuck" really isn't anything we should care about. I wonder how many people were actually watching the signing ceremony live. My guess is that there weren't that many people who would be offended by the slip. (God knows journalists only watch their language in print.) Which means that everyone complaining about his naughty language are people whosought out this clip, knowing exactly what they were about to see.
Everyone who did that is more to blame for hearing the vice president's slip of the tongue than Biden is for saying it. In this instance, those people are no better than the Parents Television Council. They search out offensive material for whatever thrill they get from being offended and outraged. I won't blame them for that, though - I love to watch Fox News simply to be an indignant liberal once in a while (plus, it provides great fodder for this blog). But when I do, I don't scream at my cable provider for telling me that it's available to watch.
I really want to know why no one is asking why Biden said that in the first place. I'm pretty sure Obama knows that healthcare is a big fucking deal. The whole debate has been a big fucking deal for over a year now. Obama himself has been a big fucking deal since at least 2007.
So why even say it, Joe?
Because he's excited. I'm excited. Even the Tea Partiers are excited, if not for a different reason. This healthcare bill is huge, figuratively and literally (thank you, Virginia Representative Eric Cantor) speaking. I hate to parrot the politicians and the media, but in so many respects, this really is a historic moment in US history. And Biden is on the side that is worn and weary, has been abused for a year, but has finally emerged victorious.
Biden deserves to say this is a big fucking deal. Everyone for whom this is a triumph deserves to say this is a big fucking deal. And even the Republicans can call this a big fucking deal.
Even if we are hesitant to admit it, Biden just said what we all were thinking. It very well could be the most honest six words spoken in this whole debate.
Length of marriage is no indicator of anything except the length of a legal contract. Don't read too much into this study, because it explains nothing. Therefore it reinforces a current worldview with nothing substantial to back it up other than quantitative analysis.
President Truman didn't need a study to desegregate the military after World War II. Congress shouldn't need one to make the military an equal opportunity employer. If current military members feel like they can't serve alongside people who aren't straight, let them forgo their guaranteed paychecks from the armed forces and try their luck in this job market.
You really have to give the President credit for a move like this. Even with skyrocketing debts, increasingly-nervous foreign investors, a declining approval rating, and a movement firmly set against him and most (if not all) government services, Obama is going to boldly announce another one of his "socialist" programs - this time $6b to provide incentives for improving energy efficiency in their homes.
Obama has been compared to Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and John F. Kennedy at different times, but none of these are very accurate comparisons. F.D.R. couldn't make a jump shot; Lyndon Johnson may have had a crushing handshake, but at least he could decide between a handshake and a bow; and though Chicago is the common denominator between Kennedy and Obama, our current president hasn't fucked Marilyn Monroe...yet.
No, the current level of swagger Obama is exhbiting in the face of such criticism can only be compared to George W. Bush. Despite all the uproar about almost everything Obama has said or done, he has once again donned the presidential blinders. Before the years 2001-2009, those blinders had remained on their hook in the Oval Office since the 1920s, when it was the popular style for everyone in Washington to wear the blinders and completely ignore anything happening anywhere, unless alcohol was involved.
I'm not saying what Obama is doing is a bad thing. It may sound hypocritical to say Bush was an overconfident idiot when he rode roughshod over political sensibility while at the same time saying Obama is doing what is necessary to help the country, but let's look at my three-pronged test for political stubbornness:
Am I using questionable information or lying? Is the world going to hate us? Is there a good chance thousands of people could die?
Bush failed all three of those tests. All economic predictors are dubious, so that doesn't apply to a bill like this. I would hope most of the industrialized world would congratulate us for joining them in the modern era, of equal rights and attempts to pay people living wages. Finally, there is very little chance anyone will die as a direct result of enacting Obama's social and economic legislature, except maybe Glenn Beck, but let's be honest: if he cries so much that he dies of dehydration, he brought it upon himself.
This bill is what Obama promised so many hopeful people on the campaign trail. Right now, Obama needs successful legislation. If he has to do it without Republican support, that's too bad for them, because as programs like Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid have shown, opponents of positive social programs have landed on the wrong side of history.
Washington may not be able to agree on much, but at least the pet name of the bill ("Cash for Caulkers") is something no one can complain about. I have a feeling that if the bill had been dubbed "Cash for Caulk," no matter what the legislation did, too many people would find that aurally unsavory.
HARVARD STUDY REVEALS CONSERVATIVES' VIEWS TOWARD GENITALS
A new study shows that those who consider themselves conservative don’t recognize the existence of genitalia.
A study at Harvard found that the part of the brain that recognizes human anatomy shows no activity when shown pictures of genitalia.
The apudendula is the part of the brain scientists have found distinguishes between different animals and between male and females of the species. Scientists assume this ability to differentiate species evolved to aid procreation. Previous studies have demonstrated a lack of activity in the apudendula of people who engage in interspecies copulation.
In this latest study, the apudendulae in people who identified themselves as conservative or Republican showed little or no activity when shown pictures of penises and vaginas.
“They recognized other human body parts, such as arms and legs,” said Harvard researcher Dr. Thomas Lowe, “but when we displayed a penis or vagina, it was like the lights went out in their apudendulae.”
Lowe remains unsure of exactly why it is only conservatives who are unable to recognize genitalia.
“All of the other groups in the study reacted to seeing sex organs,” Lowe said. “In fact, when those who called themselves liberal saw the images activity increased.”
As part of the study, participants were shown various representations of the human body, including pictures of actual people, nude artworks, and even toys.
“In the conservative group, we saw the most apudendumic activity when we showed pictures of naked Barbie and Ken dolls,” said Lowe.
Preliminary results of the study seem to indicate that conservatives view the areas where most people would see genitalia as “flat, plastic-like regions.”
“It is astounding that conservatives continue to procreate,” said one researcher. “This would seem to explain why they call it ‘the miracle of life.’”
Lowe said that the level of denial toward sexual organs and sexuality amongst conservatives that would lead to such a deep repression of evolutionary and instinctual brain activity is a possible explanation to their opposition toward abortion rights and comprehensive sex-education.
“If they don’t even recognize what’s down there, how are they supposed to understand the importance and complexity of issues like abortion?” said Lowe.
Though conservatives did not recognize images of human genitalia, like almost every other participant, their brains showed similar activity when researchers displayed a pictures of Fox News pundits like Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly.
After almost three weeks with a group of twenty-one sixth grade students, I’ve compiled a short list of initial observations and assertions. My goals over the course of this coming spring include gaining their trust and joining their society, like Jane Goodall with the apes.
1. Middle-school students are to caterpillars as adults are to butterflies. While as adults, we still retain many of our memories from our earlier years, we lose much of the power of communication with the younglings of our species. After emerging from the dark, cramped, self-conscious cocoon of adolescence, many adults find their voices to be one or more octaves deeper than before. The lower range and timbre of a mature human’s voice is unable to be heard by pre-cocoon humans. Also, like caterpillars, eleven-year-olds have fuzzy hair sprouting all over their entire body.
2. Middle-school students use a rudimentary form of English. Despite the best efforts of teachers, parents, and PBS, sixth-grade students use a more primitive form of the English language. This dialect reflects the language of “never-bloomers,” or the many pop culture icons of the MTV, E! networks, who never spin their cocoons and mature like a majority of the human species. Improper verb conjugations, omission of the “to be” verb altogether, and the phrases “that’s gay” and “no homo” are common in “never-bloomer” vernacular.
3. Sixth-grade boys are the most unintentionally homoerotic caterpillars, with the exception of the actual woolly bear caterpillar. Because of the cruel nature of children, it is important that they find a group of friends to help support them. Eleven- and twelve-year-old boys often express their friendship through inappropriately touching each other while shouting “stop being so gay!” Woolly bear caterpillars are still more homoerotic, however, due to the fact that the males will spin a cocoon together, and emerge months later as butterflies covered in each others' semen. Sixth-grade boys’ interactions rarely involve the ejaculate of any animal.
Soon I will have more in-depth observations. I hope this current post has been enlightening on the subject of sixth-grade students in New York City, as well as that of gay caterpillars.
Posts
