 |
 |
NO< CHRIS, NO > DOM...I am not exciteed at all to read your posts: it is trans-horrendous having to record your responses to gay-movement, while in fact one was hoping that you would be able to identify with them... In fact, all this discourse about the arrogance of the white male in gay affairs is not but a re-statement of the condition of being male and white (since it puts the stress on the fact that if a white male exercise homosexual powers he tends to chose a non white counterpart...but this is completely blind to the present state of affairs among the gay communities, which are trying to solve any dichotomy of this kind (the white male cherishing the illusion to be superior mentally over the physically superior non-white counter part ..this is all false, matter of fact, it seems from the records that when a white male chooses a non-white counterpart it is most of the time for being sodomized not to sodomize, for being dominated and not to dominate , and this, apparently, to unconsciously solve the sense of guild of being white, which is the sodomization of the Western white male imperialism: in other words, to let the non-white, non male, non-western, non -imperialist punish him (so, here the discourse goes on what De Sade first, and then Foucault have underlined in the relation-ship between the dominator and the dominated, pleasure, and the procedures of guilt and punishment ). These dualities are made grotesque and in this way debase and caricature the mechanism of power: be careful, you men, because it is true that in your Imperialist countries, public dominance corresponds to private depravation, desire for mortification, chastisement (how many of you seem so straight beg at night the wives or partners to be lashed enchained?) Bisexualite’ , plurisexualite’, homosexuality is something that still makes your neck stiff and your nose twisted (but why? I ask myself, in what analytic framework shall I put your over-reactions? In what categories does your mind really fall? I was not making a “feminist” attack on this issue, I was not trying to be (as I think it was suggested by – oh shame – by a woman, in fact) , nor was I playing the autarchic feminist, for God’s sake – I was not talking feminist, hei, you, down there! It was a merely intellectual debate on what is beyond and how to communicate among people, sexes, genders who believe to be close, in proximity, but still behave with regulations, archaic normative, being, as they are, universes a part: but, - oh, Mary the Virgin, Saint Monique Wittig the crucified, Saint Helene Cixous the stigmatised, and Saint Simone De Beauvoir the happy fucker, assist me! - who had ears to listen and comprehend, did listen and comprehend, those who did not, did not. Erminia On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 21:35:41 +1100, Chris Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >YES DOM! > >I am quite excited to see someone raise these issues. It is something >that has concerned me and am currently trying to write about in >fictional terms. (I hope any provocations weren't too offensive, BTW.) > >> One of the things I've noticed about >> racist dystopias is that they are always *someone's* idea of a >> sexually-liberated heaven-on-earth: at the sharp end of oppression >> you'll always find a rich white male sticking his cock into someone >> less rich, less white and less male - > >Yes, I could very much agree with your comments on Bersani. I would >perhaps extend it to the gay rights movement in Australia, too. >Although I may risk being someone who is seen as always in >opposition, even within opposition, so to speak, I find that movement >very white middle class which in turn is a ruling class interest. >For example, to be opposed to racism and hence be >more radical also means fucking racial minorities. Further, for a >radical faggot to admit that they may be a from the historical ruling >class in Aust invites ridicule and censure. A critique of the various >privileges that are gained from class status or race seem to be >elided in all this. I have found a sort of censure already in the >fact that I am writing about two very privileged white boys, for >example, when I venture to talk about it, that is. > > >> Burroughs liked to forget, about money and power - about the fact >> that the "desiring skin" of the immoralist is a white skin with >> white skin privileges. > >This says it much better then my clumsy attempt, above. Although I am >extending this and also looking at the collapse or removal of that >privilege, in a sense, which I suspect amplifies the difference, in >my current fiction, anyway. > >many thanks for comments. It is great to get another perspective on >this, too. > >Chris Jones.