Andre Breton, the homophobe?
Nikolaus Maack
visibly hardening his views toward homosexuality. Breton's hostility
toward sexual 'deviance' has since become legendary. He later
declared that the practice of male homosexuality 'completely disgusted
him,' and, with rare exceptions, he did not tolerate the presence of
homosexuals around him. This hostility is also one of the most
commonly raised examples of Breton's inner contradictions: How could
a man who championed liberation from mental and societal constraints
so violently espouse a taboo upheld by society's most conservative
forces?"
_Revolution of the Mind: The Life of Andre Breton_ by Mark
Polizzotti, 1995, p. 88
Is there any answer to Mark Polizzotti's rhetorical question?
I'm still reading this book -- I'm about 100 pages in to it, and
enjoying it a great deal -- and I'm wondering how this attitude
manifests in Breton's life. I almost want to peek ahead, and have a
look, but that would be cheating. I'll settle instead for asking all
of you: what does Andre Breton, the founder of surrealism, do that's
so incredibly homophobic to the point where his attitude is
"legendary"?
I'm also curious as to how modern day surrealists feel about this. I
would assume surrealist groups' attitudes to homosexuality changed
over the years. Has it?
While I have some respect for Breton, I still haven't decided whether
he's worthy of my respect or not. I do have great respect for Freud,
despite his cocaine abuse and sexism. I love Oscar Wilde even if he
neglected his wife and had sex with underage boys. I'm willing to
admit that all heroes and heroines are human. Breton, though I have
not yet decided whether he is a hero of mine, is as human as anybody
else.
I would like to hear any comments people might have on Breton and any
side issues this posting might raise.
Nik
---
Postcard-sized portraits -- $20.
You find the face, I pick the paint. See:
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~mrtribe
kristina
news:3841c06...@news.ncf.carleton.ca...
> "It was also in the wake of Vache's disappearance that Breton began
> visibly hardening his views toward homosexuality. Breton's hostility
> toward sexual 'deviance' has since become legendary. He later
> declared that the practice of male homosexuality 'completely disgusted
> him,' and, with rare exceptions, he did not tolerate the presence of
> homosexuals around him. This hostility is also one of the most
> commonly raised examples of Breton's inner contradictions: How could
> a man who championed liberation from mental and societal constraints
> so violently espouse a taboo upheld by society's most conservative
> forces?"
>
> _Revolution of the Mind: The Life of Andre Breton_ by Mark
> Polizzotti, 1995, p. 88
>
> Is there any answer to Mark Polizzotti's rhetorical question?
>
> I'm still reading this book -- I'm about 100 pages in to it, and
> enjoying it a great deal -- and I'm wondering how this attitude
> manifests in Breton's life. I almost want to peek ahead, and have a
> look, but that would be cheating. I'll settle instead for asking all
> of you: what does Andre Breton, the founder of surrealism, do that's
> so incredibly homophobic to the point where his attitude is
> "legendary"?
>
> I'm also curious as to how modern day surrealists feel about this. I
> would assume surrealist groups' attitudes to homosexuality changed
> over the years. Has it?
This is yet another question that could quite easily be expressed as a
generalisation of surrealists everywhere. Firstly, I think it is a well
established fact that surrealists are "people" and "individuals" at that.
There is no such thing as all surrealists thinking alike, fucking alike or
wanting, feeling, desiring, etc...Attitudes change across the board. for
example, the 60's were alot more repressed and there was a greater division
between the sexes and what the role of the male is and what the role of the
female is in society. Having said that, it is no surprise that homophobia,
sexism, rasicm, etc...all exist in this world even today. These areas are
complex and vast, and come in many colours of the bitter candy tree.
I can't answer a general question for you, nor do I particulalry want to, it
seems a waste of time, and a lie all in one breath. However, I can tell you
that I don't have a problem with gay men or lesbians...I'm not into the
labelling of my own sexuality, it seems unecessary to me to refer to myself
as a heterosexual, or a lesbian or a bi-sexual, but each to their own. I am
rather open in that regard. Another human being is an amazing
experience...does it really matter whether they have a cock or a cunt?
Again, it's a personal preference, and I do respect everyone's own identity
in these regards...not everyone is straight, or gay...makes life a little
more tantalising don't you think?
the thing I have always found perplexing and annoying is how there is this
instant thought that someone is straight unless being told otherwise. I
have always hated the ignorance that comes into sexuality. It has always
been the responsibility of the gay man, or lesbian to "tell others" or they
would be assumed as straight...rather annoying, and still a huge irritation
with me.
> While I have some respect for Breton, I still haven't decided whether
> he's worthy of my respect or not.
I don't think Breton would give a shit whether you think he is worthy of
your respect either! ha ha ha...
> I do have great respect for Freud,
> despite his cocaine abuse and sexism. I love Oscar Wilde even if he
> neglected his wife and had sex with underage boys.
How do you have "sex" with underage boys, I think that constitutes rape
don't you?
kristina.
Brandon J. Freels
> > what does Andre Breton, the founder of surrealism, do that's
> > so incredibly homophobic to the point where his attitude is
> > "legendary"?
I don't know. In one of the transcriptions from Jose Pierre's Investigating
Sex : Surrealist Research 1928-1932 Breton shows a disgust for the
homosexual act. He threatens to leave the discussion if they do not change
the subject. On the other hand, he was very good friends with Rene Crevel
and Claude Cahun, both of whom were homosexuals.
> > I'm also curious as to how modern day surrealists feel about this. I
> > would assume surrealist groups' attitudes to homosexuality changed
> > over the years. Has it?
The Surrealist's never adapted Breton's view of homosexuality in the first
place. You're generalizing again. In fact, from my own research I've found
that they never really addressed homosexuality, or women's rights for that
matter, at all. Several of the Surrealists in Pierre's book of discussions
admit to having homosexual relations at some point in their lives. Breton's
homophobia was simply a part of him that was stuck in his "age." Homophobia
was not uncommon in 1920, nor was it shamed as it is today.
I guess the reason why Breton's homophobia is so legendary is that critics
like to use it against him to shit on him. The early Surrealists blindness
of homosexual and women's rights is often used against them.
Brandon J. Freels
pretty simple: he was a prude.
I always thought that was obvious.
Paul Whitehead
Freels <fre...@teleport.com> writes
>Actually Nik, to be more direct, Breton's issues with *deviant* sexuality is
>pretty simple: he was a prude.
p
rude
>
>I always thought that was obvious.
>
>
p
Nikolaus Maack
>The Surrealist's never adapted Breton's view of homosexuality in the first
>place. You're generalizing again.
Erm, not quite generalizing. Perhaps I badly worded my question(s).
I was wondering if groups of people who call themselves surrealists go
so far as to make some kind of official "policy" for their group that
states how they won't discriminate on matters of sexual orientation.
I don't know if these sorts of things ever get discussed in surrealist
groups. Does it? Is there any need to discuss it, for the most part?
I was also wondering if the idea of "homosexuality" or "homophobia" is
an issue that gets toyed with, or if it ever comes up in surrealist
projects. Where your group has handed out leaflets on the topic of
how capitalism oppresses us, I wonder if any surrealist groups have,
for example, done leafletting on the topic of how social sexual values
oppress us. Do you know of any groups who have played with this
issue?
Or, alternatively, have any surrealists ever considered the need to
discard old definitions like "sexual orientation"? One thing gay
activists and conservative activists seem to agree on is some people
are STRAIGHT and some people are GAY, and a smaller group is BISEXUAL.
This strikes me as pretty ridiculous split of the world. I would
imagine almost everyone is in the gray area of bisexuality. Have any
surrealists, modern or otherwise, that you know of, gone out of their
way to question this?
As Kristina wrote me in email -- accidentally, she meant to post it --
people assume that the person they are talking to is heterosexual,
unless that person states otherwise. She said this bothered her. It
bothers me too, to a certain extent.
>In fact, from my own research I've found
>that they [surrealists] never really addressed homosexuality, or women's
>rights for that matter, at all.
In a recent jaunt to the university library I came across two or three
books in the surrealism area on the topic of a feminist analysis of
surrealism. I didn't bother checking them out, but I noticed them and
flipped through them. It seems that a number of feminists are going
back over the history books, and noting how "sexist" the original
surrealists were. I remember one photograph of the cover of an early
surrealist book that showed a woman trapped inside a cage.
I think hunting through history for sexism is sort of silly. Going
over Freud's life and theory, for example, you'll find he was sexist.
It shouldn't even surprise you. The very times that Freud lived in
were sexist, so of course Freud, being a product of those times, was
sexist. Same most likely goes for the surrealists. Surprise! The
people of the 1930s don't live up to 1990s political standards.
On the other hand, it makes sense to go over the theory of such times
with a modern sensibility, in an attempt to adapt the theory to today.
There are practising Freudians out there. Some major reconstruction
of the theory, in order to rid it of sexism, can only make Freudian
theory stronger. Same goes for surrealism.
>I guess the reason why Breton's homophobia is so legendary is that critics
>like to use it against him to shit on him. The early Surrealists blindness
>of homosexual and women's rights is often used against them.
Hmmm. Which is a little strange. Why should homophobia and sexism
have been an issue to surrealists of the times, if sexism and
homophobia weren't issues of their times?
On the other hand, I'm not so sure that pointing out the "oversights"
of Breton is necessarily "shitting" on him. He had flaws, he was
human. As you say in another post, he was a prude. It is an
interesting fact that while Breton was pursuing a free imagination, a
poetic form of thought, he managed to somehow *stay* a prude. This
shows how, while it's noble to want to rid ourselves of our biases,
it's pretty difficult to shake our old beliefs so hard that the biases
fall out of the tree.
Nikolaus Maack
>How do you have "sex" with underage boys, I think that constitutes rape
>don't you?
Statutory rape, yes. I believe the boys Oscar Wilde had his way with
were consenting, but under the age of consent. Not all of the young
street kids in Britan went the way of Oliver Twist. Some became male
prostitutes. Which might actually make for an interesting -- and
disturbing -- retelling of Oliver Twist.
Kay
:In a recent jaunt to the university library I came across two or three
:books in the surrealism area on the topic of a feminist analysis of
:surrealism. I didn't bother checking them out, but I noticed them and
:flipped through them. It seems that a number of feminists are going
:back over the history books, and noting how "sexist" the original
:surrealists were. I remember one photograph of the cover of an early
:surrealist book that showed a woman trapped inside a cage.
I don't know what those wild and wacky feminists are up to know, Nik, but
there are some recent publications about women Surrealist artists in the
Surrealist movement. My take on it is that at the time, all people were
sexist, including women. Not much consciousness raising was happening. As a
movement, Surrealism was far more likely to invite women to participate as
Surrealists than any other movement that I'm aware of; Expressionism comes
close, but Surrealism was a more closed group. Dorothea Tanning, Remedios
Varos, Kay Sage, Frida Kahlo (discovered, as a Surrealist, by Breton),
Eleanor Fini, Leanora Carrington, etc. I find the Surrealists able, at the
time, to embrace their fellow women Surrealists as valid (figuratively and
literally). If they still had to do the cooking and cleaning, that's just a
sign of the times. Of course, they *were* devalued, to an extent, due to
their gender and I am aware of feminist efforts to bring the women artists
of the surrealist movement to public attention. Perhaps that's what those
feminists are up to? I wouldn't know. They don't write me anymore - they
don't call...
Kay
:: Nik
Brandon J. Freels
loosen up. There was a Surrealist exhibition in 1935 (?) devoted to
Eroticism. Breton's introduction to the catalogue is published in Surrealism
and Painting. Breton tips his hat to Georges Bataille in this intro, which
he wouldn't have done ten years earlier.
And lets not forget how sexually deviant Bataille was...
http://www.phreebyrd.com/~sisyphus/bataille/
Kay
understand that "consenting" is impossible at a young age.
Kay
kristina wrote in message <81ur9p$83c$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au>...
:Nikolaus Maack <ac...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote in message
:news:38425d73...@news.ncf.carleton.ca...
:> "kristina" <bu...@start.com.au> wrote:
:> >How do you have "sex" with underage boys, I think that constitutes rape
:> >don't you?
:>
:> Statutory rape, yes. I believe the boys Oscar Wilde had his way with
:> were consenting, but under the age of consent. Not all of the young
:> street kids in Britan went the way of Oliver Twist. Some became male
:> prostitutes. Which might actually make for an interesting -- and
:> disturbing -- retelling of Oliver Twist.
:
:The word "consenting" is a bizarre abstraction when it comes to violating
:children. It makes no difference if it APPEARS they were consenting or
not.
:It is still abuse of "power" by an adult and it does not make the act of
:rape, abuse any more acceptable.
:Children have a developing sexuality, it is not okay for adults to take
:advantage of that...
:kristina.
:
:>
:> Nik
:
:
barrett john erickson
pay attention Nik. _This_ is how a surrealist discussion of such subjects
evolves:
"kristina" <bu...@start.com.au> wrote in message
news:81ur9p$83c$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au...
> Nikolaus Maack <ac...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote in message
> news:38425d73...@news.ncf.carleton.ca...
> > "kristina" <bu...@start.com.au> wrote:
> > >How do you have "sex" with underage boys, I think that constitutes rape
> > >don't you?
> >
> > Statutory rape, yes. I believe the boys Oscar Wilde had his way with
> > were consenting, but under the age of consent. Not all of the young
> > street kids in Britan went the way of Oliver Twist. Some became male
> > prostitutes. Which might actually make for an interesting -- and
> > disturbing -- retelling of Oliver Twist.
>
> The word "consenting" is a bizarre abstraction when it comes to violating
> children. It makes no difference if it APPEARS they were consenting or
not.
> It is still abuse of "power" by an adult and it does not make the act of
> rape, abuse any more acceptable.
> Children have a developing sexuality, it is not okay for adults to take
> advantage of that...
> kristina.
sorry, Kristina, i'm about a half page behind on this. i should've
responded to the original comment.
anyway....
first, i think it is important to avoid confusing "sex" with "rape", as i
think the original statement does when it misses the _real_ area of
contention -- that arbitrary and ambiguous thing known as the "age of
consent".
"rape" as a legal term, as well as in its common usage, implies force (or
coercion of some form).
whether the person "raped" is 9 or 99, male or female, straight or gay,
"idiot" or "genius", and whether that coercion is intellectual or physical,
it must be recognized and reacted to as what it is -- an assault on the
(creative) autonomy of the individual.
but "sex", as an activity, is (or at least should be) legally, ethically and
"morally" neutral.
whether we're talking about several hundred people in a common orgy of
infinite dimensions, one person masturbating in the presence of spiders in
bondage, or a teacher who's fallen in love with a student, "sex" is simply
something humans do.
all else is society's reaction to what they do.
where we naturally have problems, is when we doubt that one of the
participants in a sexual act is "capable" of giving informed consent.
and it's not difficult to accept that "consent" given before a certain level
of development (physical? cognitive? intellectual?) cannot be seen as
"informed", and can therefore be legitimately questioned. the problem i
have, is when that "certain level" is determined arbitrarily by the number
of years from birth (as in "underaged") -- as if all "children" are
mystically made "adults" by the infinitely reducible difference between one
morning and the next in one particular year of one's life.
is it a blatant ploy by the existing order to justify ignoring the concerns
of a repressed class of people ("children" -- treated as property until an
"age of maturity"), until it has sufficient time to indoctrinate them?
or is it simply a lazy way of avoiding the real problem of when it becomes
necessary to fully respect someone's autonomy?
-- barrett
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
==============================================
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
contradictions."
...André Breton
==============================================
Brandon J. Freels
> :In a recent jaunt to the university library I came across two or three
> :books in the surrealism area on the topic of a feminist analysis of
> :surrealism. I didn't bother checking them out, but I noticed them and
> :flipped through them. It seems that a number of feminists are going
> :back over the history books, and noting how "sexist" the original
> :surrealists were. I remember one photograph of the cover of an early
> :surrealist book that showed a woman trapped inside a cage.
The Surrealist Project has never supported sexism. There is no manifesto
that I can recall that attacks women. The interpretations by the feminist
art critics are subjective. A picture of a woman in a bird cage [Masson?]
can mean many things. Meaning is not held in the art, but in the
interpreter. Even so, one can not attach whatever meaning one finds in a
piece of art to the movement or even a large group of people, but only to
the artist.
Since I'm sort of on the subject I might as well ask: How does one determine
the difference between a sadomasochist piece and a misogynistic piece?
Kay wrote:
> I don't know what those wild and wacky feminists are up to know, Nik, but
> there are some recent publications about women Surrealist artists in the
> Surrealist movement.
Penelope Rosemont's "Surrealist Women: An International Anthology" is a good
place to start.
kristina
news:38425d73...@news.ncf.carleton.ca...
> "kristina" <bu...@start.com.au> wrote:
> >How do you have "sex" with underage boys, I think that constitutes rape
> >don't you?
>
> Statutory rape, yes. I believe the boys Oscar Wilde had his way with
> were consenting, but under the age of consent. Not all of the young
> street kids in Britan went the way of Oliver Twist. Some became male
> prostitutes. Which might actually make for an interesting -- and
> disturbing -- retelling of Oliver Twist.
The word "consenting" is a bizarre abstraction when it comes to violating
children. It makes no difference if it APPEARS they were consenting or not.
It is still abuse of "power" by an adult and it does not make the act of
rape, abuse any more acceptable.
Children have a developing sexuality, it is not okay for adults to take
advantage of that...
kristina.
>
kristina
news:xgE04.797$Sz5....@ptah.visi.com...
>
> pay attention Nik. _This_ is how a surrealist discussion of such subjects
> evolves:
>
>
> "kristina" <bu...@start.com.au> wrote in message
> news:81ur9p$83c$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au...
> > news:38425d73...@news.ncf.carleton.ca...
> > > "kristina" <bu...@start.com.au> wrote:
> > > >How do you have "sex" with underage boys, I think that constitutes
rape
> > > >don't you?
> > >
> > > Nik says:
> > > Statutory rape, yes. I believe the boys Oscar Wilde had his way with
> > > were consenting, but under the age of consent. Not all of the young
> > > street kids in Britan went the way of Oliver Twist. Some became male
> > > prostitutes. Which might actually make for an interesting -- and
> > > disturbing -- retelling of Oliver Twist.
> >
> > The word "consenting" is a bizarre abstraction when it comes to
violating
> > children. It makes no difference if it APPEARS they were consenting or
> not.
> > It is still abuse of "power" by an adult and it does not make the act of
> > rape, abuse any more acceptable.
> > Children have a developing sexuality, it is not okay for adults to take
> > advantage of that...
> > kristina.
>
>
> responded to the original comment.
Hi Barrett, no problem...I find it hard to keep a track of all this...I
think it's quite the way it happens!
>
> anyway....
>
>
>
> first, i think it is important to avoid confusing "sex" with "rape", as i
> think the original statement does when it misses the _real_ area of
> contention -- that arbitrary and ambiguous thing known as the "age of
> consent".
Yes, I think Nik was being rather general in his wording regarding the
subject of sex.
okay this is where it all gets juicy. It is a really good point. Age as is
defined by years is something in which we can measure and identify on a
larger scale ie: age 5 you start school. However when it comes to defining
what makes us who we are and what indeed is an acceptable and more
importantly "informed" age of consent...(regarding consentual sex in the
true meaning of the words) this is a huge area of greyness.
I'm sure we have all experienced the vast differences between two people the
same age. I have met thirty year olds that lack alot of free thinking and
questioning, which to me exhibits a further example of their lack of "mature
and informed" thinking, growth, position etc. There are a whole heap of
factors that come into it, the physical being only part of it all, as you
say Barrett. It has to do with the emotional, mental, etc aspects of a
person. All of these qualities come into play when the whole "sexual act"
takes place. So, is there such a thing as a really "forward thinking" age
of consent? Probably not, as this is impossible i think, as each person
regardless of age is totally different. But I suppose for the sake of
exploitation in this regard to violating children, we do have certain rules.
Whether or not they actually "really" work is something I am greatly
skeptical of, however, they do help in condoning the more negative aspects
of these experiences. I hope some of that made sense.
>
>
> is it a blatant ploy by the existing order to justify ignoring the
concerns
> of a repressed class of people ("children" -- treated as property until an
> "age of maturity"), until it has sufficient time to indoctrinate them?
Yes, this is really interesting. I mean there are so many goddam rules that
children are "supposed" to live by, and alot of the time, false (or lack of)
information is being fed to them, "don't do this, don't touch that, don't
ask why, don't touch yourself". It is like children are the angelic cherubs
that walk this earth for the satisfaction of selfish purposes. "I made
this!" whoopee-fucking-doo is what I say. The more we accept that children
are "unique" within themselves, and the more we are open and accepting of
our own limitations, well, the more we can be part of their growth in a
"equal" sense, so to speak. We don't own them, as you say, so why try and
oppress them into submission? It's ridiculous.
>
> or is it simply a lazy way of avoiding the real problem of when it becomes
> necessary to fully respect someone's autonomy?
I think both really....
kristina.
thanks for the mind teaser Barrett...
kristina
sorry Barrett, I made an error here in my post...see below:
> Whether or not they actually "really" work is something I am greatly
> skeptical of, however, they do help in condoning the more negative aspects
> of these experiences. I hope some of that made sense.
that is supposed to read "not condoning" as opposed to what I said....ahh,
missing words, it changes the whole damn meaning......sorry about that.
It's the bloody melbourne heat!!! ha! and the huge pile of hash sitting
here next to me!
kristina.
el...@dialin34.ottawa.globalserve.net
>
> where we naturally have problems, is when we doubt that one of the
> participants in a sexual act is "capable" of giving informed consent.
>
> and it's not difficult to accept that "consent" given before a certain level
> of development (physical? cognitive? intellectual?) cannot be seen as
> "informed", and can therefore be legitimately questioned. the problem i
> have, is when that "certain level" is determined arbitrarily by the number
> of years from birth (as in "underaged") -- as if all "children" are
> mystically made "adults" by the infinitely reducible difference between one
> morning and the next in one particular year of one's life.
>
>
> of a repressed class of people ("children" -- treated as property until an
> "age of maturity"), until it has sufficient time to indoctrinate them?
>
> necessary to fully respect someone's autonomy?
In most cases where a specific age is used to mark some legal grant
of privilege, I'd say it's something like the latter... a legalistic
need to take some objective and easily-measured characteristic and
categorize people by it. Of course that kind of thinking leads to
all kinds of rationalizations of prejudice based on age, and it's a
vicious circle.
But while I agree with most of what you wrote, I'd like to point out
that in the case of sex, there is a biological factor which does happen
to come into play at the relatively late age of 12-16 years or so
(if I remember high school correctly). It would seem that some
discrimination based on age is reasonable here: an eight-year-old is
probably not sexually mature, no matter what kind of life she's lead.
At younger ages, human development is fairly predictable, and physical
and emotional development correlates strongly with age. I don't know
if age is still a useful predictor of anything by the time someone's
16 years old, but I wouldn't so easily discount the possibility that
it might be.
_
Nikolaus Maack
>the difference between a sadomasochist piece and a misogynistic piece?
A sadomasochist piece gives you an erection. A misogynistic piece
makes you feel bad. In those cases where you get an erection and you
feel bad, please pass the material on to me, so that I may attempt to
masturbate to the material, and make a final decision for you.
To quote someone, I'm not exactly sure whom -- "Pornography is
anything that gives a judge an erection."
Johannes Kiessling
"Brandon J. Freels" <fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
> Nik wrote on Kay's post
> > :In a recent jaunt to the university library I came across two or three
> > :books in the surrealism area on the topic of a feminist analysis of
> > :surrealism. I didn't bother checking them out, but I noticed them and
> > :flipped through them. It seems that a number of feminists are going
> > :back over the history books, and noting how "sexist" the original
> > :surrealists were. I remember one photograph of the cover of an early
> > :surrealist book that showed a woman trapped inside a cage.
Jeeeeeeeeeeepers. Isn't it obvious? A woman in a cage mirrors the
position of "woman" in society. You must be blind not to see that this
is STILL TODAY the position of the large majority of women for whom all
this talk about women's lip has been nothing but verbal acrobacy which
has moved very little. So... I'd take this painting as a protest PRO
women.
Apart from that... each Surrealist had his own views on the matter and
generally they were no more and no less sexist as the whole of society.
Theoretically they were less sexist but look at the position of e.g.
women in the life of Max Ernst... and you wonder...
regards,
Yo
>
> The Surrealist Project has never supported sexism. There is no manifesto
> that I can recall that attacks women. The interpretations by the feminist
> art critics are subjective. A picture of a woman in a bird cage [Masson?]
> can mean many things. Meaning is not held in the art, but in the
> interpreter. Even so, one can not attach whatever meaning one finds in a
> piece of art to the movement or even a large group of people, but only to
> the artist.
>
> Since I'm sort of on the subject I might as well ask: How does one determine
> the difference between a sadomasochist piece and a misogynistic piece?
>
> Kay wrote:
> > I don't know what those wild and wacky feminists are up to know, Nik, but
> > there are some recent publications about women Surrealist artists in the
> > Surrealist movement.
>
> Penelope Rosemont's "Surrealist Women: An International Anthology" is a good
> place to start.
>
>
--
Johannes Kiessling
Using !Messenger/!Acornet on a RiscPC2 StrongArm/RiscOS 4.02
Computer-art at: http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/clamp/gallery/galry.html
Pupil's work at: http://www.hgoe.kuen.bw.schule.de/art/index.htm
Nikolaus Maack
>Yes, I think Nik was being rather general in his wording regarding the
>subject of sex.
Allow me to be less "general".
Oscar Wilde fucked young boys. They were young male prostitutes, most
likely, in the modern day terms, "under the age of consent". In some
minds, this makes the act of sodomizing them "statutory rape", even if
the boys asked for the sex, were well paid for their services, and
were treated with kindness and respect.
Even if the boys said, "Oh, yes please, Oscar! I like it when you cum
in my anus; it thrills me so to be taken by a man of your literary
stature! And I need the money for my sick mother!" some would argue
that Oscar was a very bad man, and should be spanked.
And so he was, sort of. People decided he was very bad for having sex
with other men, and so Oscar was locked in a cage, and wasn't allowed
to see the sun very much. Like all birds locked in gloomy cages, his
feathers fell out and he became very sad. His wife visited him in
jail, and Oscar told her that he loved her, and that he was sorry.
She said, "All right then, I love you too. We'll get through this."
Then she died.
When Oscar was set free, he soon died as well.
[Ref: the film "Wilde".]
Despite all of this, or perhaps even because of it, I like and respect
Oscar Wilde.
The End.
kristina
Johannes Kiessling <yoy...@privat.circular.de> wrote in message
news:25f1ef6849%yoy...@yoyojon.circular.de...
> In message <SqF04.56561$C7.25...@news1.teleport.com>
> "Brandon J. Freels" <fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> > Nik wrote on Kay's post
> > > :In a recent jaunt to the university library I came across two or
three
> > > :books in the surrealism area on the topic of a feminist analysis of
> > > :surrealism. I didn't bother checking them out, but I noticed them
and
> > > :flipped through them. It seems that a number of feminists are going
> > > :back over the history books, and noting how "sexist" the original
> > > :surrealists were. I remember one photograph of the cover of an early
> > > :surrealist book that showed a woman trapped inside a cage.
>
> Jeeeeeeeeeeepers. Isn't it obvious? A woman in a cage mirrors the
> position of "woman" in society. You must be blind not to see that this
> is STILL TODAY the position of the large majority of women for whom all
> this talk about women's lip has been nothing but verbal acrobacy which
> has moved very little. So... I'd take this painting as a protest PRO
> women.
Sorry but I don't agree that it is OBVIOUS, as you say. How can we approach
art in such a manner, isn't there room for expansive ideas, or does art just
deal with everything in such a mundane and conformist way? (I don't think
so and never have) I can think of thousands of things a photo or painting of
a woman in a cage could mean. she might like it, she might be waiting for a
phone call, she might be an expression of another's dream, fantasy, it may
be a self portrait of her own desires, it may be blah blah blah.....it might
have more ot do with an electrical appliance....lets not be so boring here.
lets also not keep treating women as "victims" of society, and reducing
everything to such banality. I am very much into equal rights and being
respected for my mind, however, I hate this archaic idea of what "feminism"
and "symbolism" we look for in art. Come on! Are we not past the fucking
tiresome cliches here?
I'm not personally attacking your post, but I disagree with this reduced
treatment of surrealism and art that is being exhibitied here. It is
everything that we fight against in art...does anyone agree with me here?
kristina.
kristina
> "kristina" <bu...@start.com.au> wrote:
> >Yes, I think Nik was being rather general in his wording regarding the
> >subject of sex.
>
>
> Oscar Wilde fucked young boys. They were young male prostitutes, most
> likely, in the modern day terms, "under the age of consent". In some
> minds, this makes the act of sodomizing them "statutory rape", even if
> the boys asked for the sex, were well paid for their services, and
> were treated with kindness and respect.
Okay so you think child prostitution is acceptable if there is kindness
associated with the after-fact and being paid well is what it is about: this
seems to be your justification. so in saying this, you have no problem with
child pornography, if they are paid well and treated with kindness, and no
problem with child prostitution and violation that occurs on a daily basis
in countries such as Thailand? This IS what I'm reading here...
>
> Even if the boys said, "Oh, yes please, Oscar! I like it when you cum
> in my anus; it thrills me so to be taken by a man of your literary
> stature! And I need the money for my sick mother!" some would argue
> that Oscar was a very bad man, and should be spanked.
Yes, and they should argue for good fucking reason! Have you not been using
your brain again dear? Have you not been reading what a fragile eco-system
this whole sexual "informed" age business is? Do you not question anything
at ALL? Why condone child prostitution?
>
> And so he was, sort of. People decided he was very bad for having sex
> with other men, and so Oscar was locked in a cage, and wasn't allowed
> to see the sun very much. Like all birds locked in gloomy cages, his
> feathers fell out and he became very sad. His wife visited him in
> jail, and Oscar told her that he loved her, and that he was sorry.
> She said, "All right then, I love you too. We'll get through this."
Oscar having sex with other MEN is not a problem, although I understand what
you are saying regarding homophobia at large.
>
> Then she died.
> When Oscar was set free, he soon died as well.
> [Ref: the film "Wilde".]
>
> Despite all of this, or perhaps even because of it, I like and respect
> Oscar Wilde.
what do you mean here, "because of it?". This I find rather
curious...illuminate us on your "personal views" here!
kristina.
Brandon J. Freels
> Jeeeeeeeeeeepers. Isn't it obvious? A woman in a cage mirrors the
> position of "woman" in society. You must be blind not to see that this
> is STILL TODAY the position of the large majority of women for whom all
> this talk about women's lip has been nothing but verbal acrobacy which
> has moved very little. So... I'd take this painting as a protest PRO
> women.
How you *take* this painting, actually I believe it is an assemblage, is
*your* subjective interpretation. There is no objective interpretation. The
possibilities for interpretations of this piece are as limitless as there
are possibilities for interpreters, infinite.
Besides, dismissing this piece as simply a mirror of the position of *woman*
in society completely avoids several questions about the piece: Why is
*only* the mannequin's head in the cage? Why does the mannequin have a
flower coming out of its mouth? Is there any significance to the mannequin's
nakedness? From memory I believe the mannequin is bald. Does this have any
importance?
We could also compare the piece with the many other decorated mannequins at
the International Surrealist Exhibition of 1938. We could also cross
examining this piece with Meret Oppenhiem's The Banquet, Hans Bellmer's
dolls, or Dali's Rainy Taxi.
Nikolaus Maack
>Okay so you think child prostitution is acceptable if there is kindness
>associated with the after-fact and being paid well is what it is about: this
>seems to be your justification. so in saying this, you have no problem with
>child pornography, if they are paid well and treated with kindness, and no
>problem with child prostitution and violation that occurs on a daily basis
>in countries such as Thailand? This IS what I'm reading here...
No, Kristina, I'm not arguing that I should be allowed to open up a
local child prostitution ring in my neighborhood. I'm saying that
when a fifteen year old boy stands on a street corner selling his ass
to local businessmen, the issue is slightly different than when, say,
an 8 year old boy is grabbed off the street and anally raped.
Unfortunately, most people don't make these sorts of distinctions when
talking about pedophelia.
Me:
>> Despite all of this, or perhaps even because of it, I like and respect
>> Oscar Wilde.
K:
>what do you mean here, "because of it?". This I find rather
>curious...illuminate us on your "personal views" here!
No. Sometimes I don't want to bother to explain myself. It's boring.
You figure it out on your own. If you can't, let it go.
barrett john erickson
> okay this is where it all gets juicy. It is a really good point. Age as
is
> defined by years is something in which we can measure and identify on a
> larger scale ie: age 5 you start school. However when it comes to
defining
> what makes us who we are and what indeed is an acceptable and more
> importantly "informed" age of consent...(regarding consentual sex in the
> true meaning of the words) this is a huge area of greyness.
>
> I'm sure we have all experienced the vast differences between two people
the
> same age. I have met thirty year olds that lack alot of free thinking and
> questioning, which to me exhibits a further example of their lack of
"mature
> and informed" thinking, growth, position etc. There are a whole heap of
> factors that come into it, the physical being only part of it all, as you
> say Barrett. It has to do with the emotional, mental, etc aspects of a
> person. All of these qualities come into play when the whole "sexual act"
> takes place. So, is there such a thing as a really "forward thinking" age
> of consent? Probably not, as this is impossible i think, as each person
> regardless of age is totally different. But I suppose for the sake of
> exploitation in this regard to violating children, we do have certain
rules.
> Whether or not they actually "really" work is something I am greatly
> skeptical of, however, they do help in [not] condoning the more negative
aspects
> of these experiences. I hope some of that made sense.
Yes, and what i mean to say is that the very reason such "rules" fail is
that they begin by arbitrarily relegating some people to the lesser class of
"children" and the rest to the ruling class of "adults".
from that point on, the oppression is built into the equation and inherent
in _any_ adult/child relationship as well as any subsequent social
regulation of such relationships.
so the "rules" or taboos (such as those against "sex with minors") which
emerge from such an order, however well intentioned or motivated by
protective concern, reinforce a hierarchy in which the desires and actions
of one class can be and are usurped by another. and since this is happening
under the guise of protecting the subjugated class from the "deviant"
behavior of certain ruling class individuals, they can avoid having to
justify -- or even acknowledge -- the systemic oppression.
but it is the systemic oppression which sustains the "deviant" behavior --
which is after all, merely an extreme expression of the dominant attitude.
there would be no need for laws or taboos against "sex with minors" if the
society respected the personal autonomy of any individual regardless of age.
in that situation, the same problem would be defined as how to identify and
prevent coercion. but because coercion is built into our existing social
hierarchies, coercion is precisely what such laws and taboos are intended to
protect.
any social action that begins with the formation of hierarchies of
oppression needs to be resisted.
barrett john erickson
> In most cases where a specific age is used to mark some legal grant
> of privilege, I'd say it's something like the latter... a legalistic
> need to take some objective and easily-measured characteristic and
> categorize people by it. Of course that kind of thinking leads to
> all kinds of rationalizations of prejudice based on age, and it's a
> vicious circle.
>
> But while I agree with most of what you wrote, I'd like to point out
> that in the case of sex, there is a biological factor which does happen
> to come into play at the relatively late age of 12-16 years or so
> (if I remember high school correctly).
this is certainly true. but...
>It would seem that some
> discrimination based on age is reasonable here: an eight-year-old is
> probably not sexually mature, no matter what kind of life she's lead.
we need to be careful not to confuse "maturity" (physical or otherwise) with
"age".
> At younger ages, human development is fairly predictable, and physical
> and emotional development correlates strongly with age. I don't know
> if age is still a useful predictor of anything by the time someone's
> 16 years old, but I wouldn't so easily discount the possibility that
> it might be.
even accepting every thing you say, "age" remains a shortcut which reduces
the complexity of the real problems faced, while allowing those in power to
justify (or even avoid questioning) oppressive tactics.
[ please see also my other post for elaboration. ]
barrett john erickson
>
> Okay so you think child prostitution is acceptable if there is kindness
> associated with the after-fact and being paid well is what it is about:
this
> seems to be your justification. so in saying this, you have no problem
with
> child pornography, if they are paid well and treated with kindness, and no
> problem with child prostitution and violation that occurs on a daily basis
> in countries such as Thailand? This IS what I'm reading here...
but aren't "child prostitution" and "child pornography" are merely
("deviant") expressions of the dominant socio-economic structures which
treat sex as a commodity, deify POWER, etc.?
if we fall into the trap of specific outrage against these "deviant"
expressions, don't we open the door to resolutions which ultimately
strengthen this dominant order by helping confine its perversions of desire
to those less offensive to the masses?
el...@dialin34.ottawa.globalserve.net
>
> Yes, and what i mean to say is that the very reason such "rules" fail is
> that they begin by arbitrarily relegating some people to the lesser class of
> "children" and the rest to the ruling class of "adults".
>
> from that point on, the oppression is built into the equation and inherent
> in _any_ adult/child relationship as well as any subsequent social
> regulation of such relationships.
>
> so the "rules" or taboos (such as those against "sex with minors") which
> emerge from such an order, however well intentioned or motivated by
> protective concern, reinforce a hierarchy in which the desires and actions
> of one class can be and are usurped by another. and since this is happening
> under the guise of protecting the subjugated class from the "deviant"
> behavior of certain ruling class individuals, they can avoid having to
> justify -- or even acknowledge -- the systemic oppression.
I don't think an intention to "protect" children is where this comes
from, really, although that may be the way it's presented sometimes.
The custom of having an initiation where a young member of the tribe
graduates into full participation is almost universal. It doesn't
have to happen at a particular age. In some places, it happens when
the community feels that the individual is ready. The modern "age of
consent" is just a rationalized version of this ancient custom.
The same social model is present in many other places, too... workplaces,
universities, social clubs, sports teams, just about any place where there
is a distinction between "members" and non-members.
Are you arguing that all of the various models of initiation into the
club are oppressive, or just that the age-based ones our society uses
are hopelessly corrupted?
> any social action that begins with the formation of hierarchies of
> oppression needs to be resisted.
_
mesken
Maack) wrote:
>"kristina" <bu...@start.com.au> wrote:
>>Okay so you think child prostitution is acceptable if there is kindness
>>associated with the after-fact and being paid well is what it is about: this
>>seems to be your justification. so in saying this, you have no problem with
>>child pornography, if they are paid well and treated with kindness, and no
>>problem with child prostitution and violation that occurs on a daily basis
>>in countries such as Thailand? This IS what I'm reading here...
>
>No, Kristina, I'm not arguing that I should be allowed to open up a
>local child prostitution ring in my neighborhood. I'm saying that
>when a fifteen year old boy stands on a street corner selling his ass
>to local businessmen, the issue is slightly different than when, say,
>an 8 year old boy is grabbed off the street and anally raped.
>Unfortunately, most people don't make these sorts of distinctions when
>talking about pedophelia.
>
In the Netherlands of the 70s there was even made a distinction
between pedophiles and pedosexuals. The sexual variety wanted to have
sex with children, the pedophiles just loved children to a less normal
degree (something like Michael Jackson I guess :-)
Nowadays, due to some severe crimes (like the child killer/raper/pimp
Dutroux in Belgium) the issues seem to polarize and the quite tolerant
laws of the Netherlands are being changed (the Netherlands are getting
more and more right winged)
Take the well known Traci Lords for example, she made most of her porn
movies when she was underage (actually only 1 was made when she turned
18) Ofcourse people didn't know and Traci became the porn queen of the
80s for she faked her ID, telling she was well over 18 when she was
actually 15 when she entered the business.
Are all these people who watched her movies (and there are a lot of
them) pedophiles? Ofcourse not for they didn't know and actually you
can't see that she is underage (I've seen about 40 of her movies and
I'm not a pedophile, if her movies were under the category kiddie porn
then I wouldn't have rented or bought them).
Let's also not forget people become sexually active at around the age
of 12 (women a little sooner than men).
There's indeed a big difference between enjoying a movie of Traci
Lords at 15, 16 or 17 or a movie of a 6 year old sucking some dick.
Although for the law they're equally bad for the law doesn't make the
distinction.
barrett john erickson
news:slrn8487g9...@dialin34.ottawa.globalserve.net...
> I don't think an intention to "protect" children is where this comes
> from, really, although that may be the way it's presented sometimes.
> The custom of having an initiation where a young member of the tribe
> graduates into full participation is almost universal. It doesn't
> have to happen at a particular age. In some places, it happens when
> the community feels that the individual is ready. The modern "age of
> consent" is just a rationalized version of this ancient custom.
>
> The same social model is present in many other places, too... workplaces,
> universities, social clubs, sports teams, just about any place where there
> is a distinction between "members" and non-members.
well, this is a very good point, and one i hadn't considered.
[ my knowledge of such things (ritual and initiation) is very limited, and
my interest (i confess) just as limited. but i agree this is very
relevant. ]
so, as i understand what you're saying, it would be accurate to characterize
such initiations or transitions into adulthood (or full social
participation) as being closer to a social determination of
physical/intelectual capability (development) relative to whatever that
social entity deems as a qualification for full participation (as opposed to
the modern equivalents which seem to have more to do with multiple stages of
transition toward emacipation from parents and sanction by the governing
body)?
>
> Are you arguing that all of the various models of initiation into the
> club are oppressive, or just that the age-based ones our society uses
> are hopelessly corrupted?
closer to the later.
i don't argue that social entities have no need to establish qualifications
for full participation, only that when those qualifications are inherently
oppressive (as i see all current age-based criteria) they must be resisted.
Johannes Kiessling
"kristina" <bu...@start.com.au> wrote:
>
> Johannes Kiessling <yoy...@privat.circular.de> wrote in message
> news:25f1ef6849%yoy...@yoyojon.circular.de...
> > In message <SqF04.56561$C7.25...@news1.teleport.com>
> > "Brandon J. Freels" <fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Nik wrote on Kay's post
> > > > :In a recent jaunt to the university library I came across two or
> three
> > > > :books in the surrealism area on the topic of a feminist analysis of
> > > > :surrealism. I didn't bother checking them out, but I noticed them
> and
> > > > :flipped through them. It seems that a number of feminists are going
> > > > :back over the history books, and noting how "sexist" the original
> > > > :surrealists were. I remember one photograph of the cover of an early
> > > > :surrealist book that showed a woman trapped inside a cage.
> >
> > Jeeeeeeeeeeepers. Isn't it obvious? A woman in a cage mirrors the
> > position of "woman" in society. You must be blind not to see that this
> > is STILL TODAY the position of the large majority of women for whom all
> > this talk about women's lip has been nothing but verbal acrobacy which
> > has moved very little. So... I'd take this painting as a protest PRO
> > women.
>
> Sorry but I don't agree that it is OBVIOUS, as you say. How can we approach
> art in such a manner,
Yes and no - as soon as we translate art into another medium, e.g.
language, we're getting away from the real thing and just use it to
unfold our own views. This might easily start with a rather simple and
corny and cliche-type... A simple undifferentiated "hypothesis" as a
base for a more detailed discussion leading exactly to what you say.
I'm thinking of (forget who said it) that art is a world in a nutshell
which needs to be unfolded into a whole (individual/subjective) view of
a world ("Weltanschauung"). Of course, the further this goes...the
further we get away from the actual work and by the time we're finished,
we had better sever the tie to it altogether and in relation to the work
forget it so we can go back to it and look at it afresh as it were the
first time. After all...in the end noone knows what a work of art is
about or, at least, it's nothing that can be (easily) put into words or
the artist would have written a book. Maybe our interpretations are just
a means to get our conformist way of thinking out of the way and only
when we've thought it all and chucked away - can we see the work for
what it is. Still... all this thinking/interpreting might have a meaning
in itself, leading us to review certain ideas, give us new ones, make us
conscious about something in ourselves that was still more or less below
the conscious level... In the end I find that I look at a (good) work
the way I hear a piece of music or might even dance to it - just feel
almost physically that everything falls into place and a delight that I
can see this and/or that the artist saw this... Maybe that is the real
way of looking at art or hearing music or... BUT this in uncommunicable,
let alone teachable. And still... these other ways... MIGHT eventually
lead someone to appreciate a work as I have just described.
I surely have forgotten the most central things now...BUT I hope to have
shown that we're dealing with a set of complex processes which interact.
And, yes, my remark this morning (before breakfast :-) was a bit "banal"
all right...
> isn't there room for expansive ideas, or does art just
as a non-native speaker of English I'm a bit uncertain about the meaning
of "expansive". Do you mean "in a larger frame" or "with more feeling"?
I hope I have considered both aspects above...
> deal with everything in such a mundane and conformist way? (I don't think
> so and never have) I can think of thousands of things a photo or painting of
> a woman in a cage could mean. she might like it, she might be waiting for a
> phone call, she might be an expression of another's dream, fantasy, it may
> be a self portrait of her own desires, it may be blah blah blah.....it might
> have more ot do with an electrical appliance....lets not be so boring here.
Why not all of these ideas? Sounds "expansive" to me to enlarge into a
field of ideas rather than one - which should help to leave the boring
simple idea as voiced by me at the beginning :-)
After all, since realitivity was discovered and maybe the cubists
expressed this (among other things) in their work etc. we know that,
depending on one's point of view, we all see different things...
And since the famous "Schoedinger's cat" (which few have understood, me
neither :-) we kind of only know whether the cat lives or is dead when
we open the box which, I think, is the moment when we CREATE the world
according to our own fashion... and we all open these boxes all the
time...??? (Hmmm... chancing my arm up to the ellbow :-)
> lets also not keep treating women as "victims" of society, and reducing
> everything to such banality. I am very much into equal rights and being
> respected for my mind, however, I hate this archaic idea of what "feminism"
> and "symbolism" we look for in art. Come on! Are we not past the fucking
> tiresome cliches here?
Of course one hell of a subject and not a simple one. But thinking about
emancipation, let me give but one life example of the state of affairs:
the daughter of a collegue went to my school and finished brilliantly.
She then went on to university and studied biology with emphasis on
microbiology and genetic engineering (or something like that, I forget
the exact subject). She finished again with all the bells - ready for
quite an interesting career etc, etc.
Then she meets this man. Gets herself pregnant and marries him or the
other way round, whatever... Now for the past couple of years she's been
at home looking after one/several kids. Her qualification slipped from
her as in this field you need to keep up. He follows an interesting
cereer and she follows the example of her mother as a housewife.
And this kind of thing I see happening around me again and again and
again. This is the new, emancipated generation????
Well, I live in Germany which is particularly backward in these
matters...but...
this might not be the frame for a discussion on emancipation and so I'll
stop here. But for these reasons I think that almost any pretext is a
good one to bring it up :-)
>
> I'm not personally attacking your post, but I disagree with this reduced
> treatment of surrealism and art that is being exhibitied here. It is
> everything that we fight against in art...does anyone agree with me here?
ok, I agree :-) ... but maybe you could enlarge a bit on your views???
Take care,
Yo
el...@dialin34.ottawa.globalserve.net
>
> so, as i understand what you're saying, it would be accurate to characterize
> such initiations or transitions into adulthood (or full social
> participation) as being closer to a social determination of
> physical/intelectual capability (development) relative to whatever that
> social entity deems as a qualification for full participation (as opposed to
> the modern equivalents which seem to have more to do with multiple stages of
> transition toward emacipation from parents and sanction by the governing
> body)?
While the need for a determination of capability is among the incentives
for groups to evolve this kind of behaviour, I wasn't suggesting that
demonstrated capability is sufficient for full participation in such
groups. In practice, it isn't like that. Initiatory rituals often
develop that are only perhiperally related to demonstrating real
qualities.
While instant graduation based on attaining a particular age is an
extreme example of this, I think that in groups where some test must be
passed and then membership is granted, the test is almost never an
absolutely accurate measure of whatever the desired criteria for
membership is.
I agree that life in modern industrialzed society differs from the
typical initiation of a smaller tribal entity in that it has (as well
as many paths to choose from) many more stages of transition.
It could be argued that there are so many that some people never
finish going through them, and thus never become fully-participating
adults - hence the modern preoccupation with constantly seeking the
next level of social status. Come to think of it, maybe that's
why we have 'celebrities'.
> i don't argue that social entities have no need to establish qualifications
> for full participation, only that when those qualifications are inherently
> oppressive (as i see all current age-based criteria) they must be resisted.
IMO qualifications for participation are potentially oppressive as soon
as they are specified. There can never be a specification that doesn't
make for unjustified decisions in some cases. The more entrenched and
rigid it becomes, the more oppressive it gets, regardless of its origin.
_
dale houstman
>I'll settle instead for asking all of you: what does Andre >Breton, the
founder of surrealism, do that's so incredibly >homophobic to the point
where his attitude >is "legendary"?
I've read the entire biography, but never really came across much of much;
like so many intellectuals - maybe more than most - Breton lived a life of
the mind. His homophobia (which is real enough) manifested itself mainly
(from what I can see) in answers to questions about sexuality in general. I
don't know of any specific incident in which he "ejected" a surrealist for
this "crime" and can only say his homophobia is legendary precisely in
relation to his public statements on freedom for all. Much the same can be
said about his attitude (and the attitude of surrealists at large) on the
Ideal Woman, which is surely unacceptable today. One can only say that
Breton was a man of his time, and that some of his ideas are bound to
reflect this.
> I'm also curious as to how modern day surrealists feel >about this.
I assume (without having met every surrealist YET) that almost all would at
least publicly state their whole-hearted "acceptance" (if that is not too
much of a thing) of this perfectly beautiful posture in the world. Some may
or may not feel interior personal animosities or lingering anxieties about
homosexual love, but I think they would be under tremendous "peer pressure"
not only to keep silent on the point of their personal preferences, but also
to reinvestigate these very stands.
DMH
Brandon J. Freels
> Yes, this is one hell of a subject, you are right. My own experience is
> that the majority of art students in college are female. the percentage
is
> alarming, something like 80% females and the remainder are 20%males,
> naturally. what is interesting is that the most likely to go on into art
> after university are the small amount of male students, achieving a larger
> degree of success, as opposed to the females.
How do you determine *success*? From my experience no art student has ever
achieve any degree of financial success from their art, male or female. From
a Surrealist point of view, where art is a medium for discovery, I'm sure
both men and women have had *success* ... gender is irrelevant to forced
inspiration.
kristina
aspects
> > of these experiences. I hope some of that made sense.
>
>
> that they begin by arbitrarily relegating some people to the lesser class
of
> "children" and the rest to the ruling class of "adults".
>
> from that point on, the oppression is built into the equation and inherent
> in _any_ adult/child relationship as well as any subsequent social
> regulation of such relationships.
I see what you're saying Barrett, and do agree. The oppresion in
child/adult relationships (as they stand under the whole dominant control
structure) is eivdent in "all" communications and associations...the sexual
aspect is but one of those areas.
> so the "rules" or taboos (such as those against "sex with minors") which
> emerge from such an order, however well intentioned or motivated by
> protective concern, reinforce a hierarchy in which the desires and actions
> of one class can be and are usurped by another. and since this is
happening
> under the guise of protecting the subjugated class from the "deviant"
> behavior of certain ruling class individuals, they can avoid having to
> justify -- or even acknowledge -- the systemic oppression.
True, it seems to be all in the name of "protecting". It is amazing to
think of all of this in terms of how it benefits the adult and does nothing
what-so-ever for the child. It is like I was saying also, the level of
submission required by children for "their own good" is really just a huge
wank (for want of a better word...but it's early morning here, it will have
to do for now).
> but it is the systemic oppression which sustains the "deviant" behavior --
> which is after all, merely an extreme expression of the dominant attitude.
Yes...a very important thing to remember and more importantly be "aware" of.
(I seem to just be repeating myself here, but that is essentially because I
agree with what you are saying).
> there would be no need for laws or taboos against "sex with minors" if the
> society respected the personal autonomy of any individual regardless of
age.
This would be a breakthrough, but are people really willing to give up the
fruits they have now? This is really what it comes down to, (overly
simplified). If we accept the individual, regardless of age with full
autonomy....where does that leave those currently in control and with that,
position in the heirachy? I wish it would happen...I see too many defining
lines (so called) for the "betterment of society" and protection of what is
considered the "minority" or "underdog". In this case children under the
age of consent being the inital motivator in these discussions, but as we
both know, there are fully grown adults in situations that mirror the
oppressive, violating relationships that we are talking about, with "one
another". Ahhhh it is a nice thought...how do we make it happen though?
(deep thoughtful look here)...ha ha!
Seriously, I have a hard enough time watching mother's abuse the shit out of
their kids in supermarkets...human beings are at their worst when they feel
threatened in some way, (their position of control and power) is at threat,
and they re-inforce the rules, current balanced structure that comforts
them...often in rather embarassing and damaging displays. How do we indeed
bring a more positive balance to such a see-saw situation...
> in that situation, the same problem would be defined as how to identify
and
> prevent coercion. but because coercion is built into our existing social
> hierarchies, coercion is precisely what such laws and taboos are intended
to
> protect.
>
> any social action that begins with the formation of hierarchies of
> oppression needs to be resisted.
So true Barrett. thanks...
kristina.
kristina
> >
>
> > Okay so you think child prostitution is acceptable if there is kindness
> > associated with the after-fact and being paid well is what it is about:
this
> > seems to be your justification. so in saying this, you have no problem
with
> > child pornography, if they are paid well and treated with kindness, and
no
> > problem with child prostitution and violation that occurs on a daily
basis
> > in countries such as Thailand? This IS what I'm reading here...
>
> ("deviant") expressions of the dominant socio-economic structures which
> treat sex as a commodity, deify POWER, etc.?
Yes, sex has always been treated and seen with great power. Who we are is
so closely connected to our own sexuality. (I think so anyway...it is a
foundation of the individual).
> if we fall into the trap of specific outrage against these "deviant"
> expressions, don't we open the door to resolutions which ultimately
> strengthen this dominant order by helping confine its perversions of
desire
> to those less offensive to the masses?
What you are saying Barrett is true, and I do agree...My outrage (so to
speak) is in the in-balance overall that seems to be the foundation to
child-adult relationships, (adult-adult relationships as well, but for sake
of argument we are speaking of children here). Be they within the home or
in Thailand, etc. It's really all of what we have been talking about here,
the limitaions and impositions of the current oppresive system and approach
to life. (huge generalisation there).
A huge leap is needed if things are to change, I can't help but be offended
at the socially acceptable level of oppression that exists on a daily
basis....the child prostitution is just one area.
kristina.
kristina
> >kristina:
> >what do you mean here, "because of it?". This I find rather
> >curious...illuminate us on your "personal views" here!
>
> Nik:
> No. Sometimes I don't want to bother to explain myself. It's boring.
> You figure it out on your own. If you can't, let it go.
me responded:
I have no problem letting it go...and no, I won't lose any sleep over you
not getting into discussing this...ha ha ha.
And I have no "need" to figure it out as you say...I'm being fully figured
as we speak... Go figure!
kristina.
parono...@my-deja.com
> The Surrealist Project has never supported sexism.
Are you asserting that you personally do not engage in sexist
behaviour within this news group?
> There is no manifesto that I can recall that attacks women.
What do you do to stop the attacks?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
kristina
> > > Jeeeeeeeeeeepers. Isn't it obvious? A woman in a cage mirrors the
> > > position of "woman" in society. You must be blind not to see that this
> > > is STILL TODAY the position of the large majority of women for whom
all
> > > this talk about women's lip has been nothing but verbal acrobacy which
> > > has moved very little. So... I'd take this painting as a protest PRO
> > > women.
> >
> > Sorry but I don't agree that it is OBVIOUS, as you say. How can we
approach
> > art in such a manner,
Morning Jo, (now it's my turn to hopefully make some sense)...
I won't just repeat everything you've said, but you've brought up many good
points and put rather well the more complex nature of how we view art. Yes
there are many ways to take it in. (I have a rather hard time "writing"
into words what I'm thinking, so I'll keep it simple here). I did the
university art thing, and through that personal experience, it was clearly
evident from the start that when approaching art history/theory for example,
there were always comparisons to be drawn, reductions to be made, expansions
to consider. In other words there was a set of rules from our lecturers in
"how to critique" a piece of work, how to put on paper an essay on the
movemtn, the artist, life, and of course their work, influences etc. The
problem I found with all of that was that there was not "enough"
encouragment to get away from the old hashed out critiques, ideas of the
past. As a skill in researching it was a good tool, and of course, i have
used the information in my own way now, and have questioned it. so as you
say, even these "limited" ways of approaching art work do inspire us (some
of course) to push those boundaries further and in essence, come to a point
where we "think" outside of the comfort zones of understanding and
familiarity. Something like that...(I need more coffee!)
> > isn't there room for expansive ideas, or does art just
> as a non-native speaker of English I'm a bit uncertain about the meaning
> of "expansive". Do you mean "in a larger frame" or "with more feeling"?
> I hope I have considered both aspects above...
I was really refering to both here...I respond to art on a very primary
level, it either captivates me in some way or not. If it doesn't captivate,
it does not necessarily mean it is not a good piece of art work. it may
mean I like it even more later....thought provoking. But yes, expansive in
the sense of our responses to a piece of work. I'm not advocating
dissceting a piece of work beyond all recognition or analysing till it no
longer holds any pleasure...I think the "expansive" view comes into play
automatically for me, I just look at something and my automatic response is
naturally questioned by myself then and there....if that makes sense! Ha!
> > deal with everything in such a mundane and conformist way? (I don't
think
> > so and never have) I can think of thousands of things a photo or
painting of
> > a woman in a cage could mean. she might like it, she might be waiting
for a
> > phone call, she might be an expression of another's dream, fantasy, it
may
> > be a self portrait of her own desires, it may be blah blah blah.....it
might
> > have more ot do with an electrical appliance....lets not be so boring
here.
> Why not all of these ideas? Sounds "expansive" to me to enlarge into a
> field of ideas rather than one - which should help to leave the boring
> simple idea as voiced by me at the beginning :-)
Yes, hear hear!!! I agree!
> After all, since realitivity was discovered and maybe the cubists
> expressed this (among other things) in their work etc. we know that,
> depending on one's point of view, we all see different things...
> And since the famous "Schoedinger's cat" (which few have understood, me
> neither :-) we kind of only know whether the cat lives or is dead when
> we open the box which, I think, is the moment when we CREATE the world
> according to our own fashion... and we all open these boxes all the
> time...??? (Hmmm... chancing my arm up to the ellbow :-)
You have nice arms...(abstractions a plenty this morning!) Seriously, I
think if we can get away even "slightly" from "boxing" everything in, then
we can start looking through new eyes, so to speak. this is not so easily
achieved, as you say, we each bring something of ourselves to art, life,
etc. I'm summarising like mad here.
> > lets also not keep treating women as "victims" of society, and reducing
> > everything to such banality. I am very much into equal rights and
being
> > respected for my mind, however, I hate this archaic idea of what
"feminism"
> > and "symbolism" we look for in art. Come on! Are we not past the
fucking
> > tiresome cliches here?
> Of course one hell of a subject and not a simple one. But thinking about
> emancipation, let me give but one life example of the state of affairs:
> the daughter of a collegue went to my school and finished brilliantly.
> She then went on to university and studied biology with emphasis on
> microbiology and genetic engineering (or something like that, I forget
> the exact subject). She finished again with all the bells - ready for
> quite an interesting career etc, etc.
> Then she meets this man. Gets herself pregnant and marries him or the
> other way round, whatever... Now for the past couple of years she's been
> at home looking after one/several kids. Her qualification slipped from
> her as in this field you need to keep up. He follows an interesting
> cereer and she follows the example of her mother as a housewife.
Yes, this is one hell of a subject, you are right. My own experience is
that the majority of art students in college are female. the percentage is
alarming, something like 80% females and the remainder are 20%males,
naturally. what is interesting is that the most likely to go on into art
after university are the small amount of male students, achieving a larger
degree of success, as opposed to the females. Yes, as you said, the whole
thing of marrying and having children is the biggest reason. (generally
speaking). I read a book recently on the whole "mother-daughter"
relationship, and it talked about how women, no matter how intelligent or
creative, do generally have a tendancy to let their dreams and aspirations
in life go for the husband, partner, children. Perhaps this is one reason
why I have chosen neither. No husband and certainly no children. This is
another interesting topic too. The whole thing of bearing children. I have
come across resentment, anger, disbelief, rage, wonder, stupified
expressions at my telling that I have "actively" chosen not to have
children, and NO, I won't be changing my mind. It is as if no matter how
far we "think" we have come, people still respond with shock when a woman
says she doesn't want that piece of familiar old cake!
> And this kind of thing I see happening around me again and again and
> again. This is the new, emancipated generation????
> Well, I live in Germany which is particularly backward in these
> matters...but...
> this might not be the frame for a discussion on emancipation and so I'll
> stop here. But for these reasons I think that almost any pretext is a
> good one to bring it up :-)
Marvellous, thanks for the great thinking here this morning Jo. I admit, I
sort of went off the subject, but it all ties in...people, women, men,
art...and of course we go on...
> > I'm not personally attacking your post, but I disagree with this reduced
> > treatment of surrealism and art that is being exhibitied here. It is
> > everything that we fight against in art...does anyone agree with me
here?
> ok, I agree :-) ... but maybe you could enlarge a bit on your views???
Hmmm, hope some of the above made sense. I admit, it is hard at times
getting my head around "making sense" in writing.
If you're ever in Australia, we should go out for a drink! Easier to
"speak". (smiling here).
> Take care,
you too..
> Yo
kristina.
Leo Sgouros
"How fair is youth that flies so fast!Then be happy,you who may;what's to
come is still unsure"
Lorenzo De' Medici
"To fulfill her other roles, the well-born woman raised leisure to an art.A
few gifted women, flowering in the hothouse of court society, became
towering figures, and as versatile as the age's 'universal man'.
One great lady, Vittoria Colonna, fascinated wordly courtiers, befriended
religious rebels(for which she was placed under surveillance by a church
court), exchanged passionate lyrics with Michelangelo and secretly dospensed
political advice tp Pope Paul III."
Renaissance, John Hale
I only added this because "liberated women", or women outside society's
perceived structure/place, have through the ages exerted alot of influence,
and it is interesting that people would be surprised in this day and age
that a woman doesnt want to have kids or fit the "little wife" mold.
_L_
kristina
Leo Sgouros <lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1p_04.44190$435.1...@typhoon2.tampabay.rr.com...
[massive huge snip and tuck!...]
> "How fair is youth that flies so fast!Then be happy,you who may;what's to
> come is still unsure"
> Lorenzo De' Medici
>
> "To fulfill her other roles, the well-born woman raised leisure to an
art.A
> few gifted women, flowering in the hothouse of court society, became
> towering figures, and as versatile as the age's 'universal man'.
> One great lady, Vittoria Colonna, fascinated wordly courtiers, befriended
> religious rebels(for which she was placed under surveillance by a church
> court), exchanged passionate lyrics with Michelangelo and secretly
dospensed
> political advice tp Pope Paul III."
> Renaissance, John Hale
>
> I only added this because "liberated women", or women outside society's
> perceived structure/place, have through the ages exerted alot of
influence,
> and it is interesting that people would be surprised in this day and age
> that a woman doesnt want to have kids or fit the "little wife" mold.
> _L_
>
Yes it is somewhat disturbing really. I don't know whether or not I have
been idealistic in how I see women today...(as I live in these times) but it
hasn't only been people I knew as rather taditional in their family views.
(this can also be related to the whole conversation of "are adults really
informed?")
It has been friends and people I considered rather open and forward
thinking...but mention babies, and almost everyone turns into a big soggy
nappy of gurgled joy! Fucking weird...
The worst of these responses was something to the effect of: "you are being
selfish, what about your father?"....I almost punched this person
out...(okay, not really, but certainly, that comment took me by surprise!
as you can imagine it would). I never thought of myself as a "breeding
machine" that has a responsibility to "others" in regard to how I "choose"
to live my life pertaining to having children or not!
I don't care whether people want to breed or not, it's up to them...the
emphasis and certain "expectation" of it is very annoying though. It is all
somewhat predictable.
See I can spend four hours putting on face cream, and don't have to buy a
four-in-one, cleanser, toner, dishwasher and vacuum cleaning device beacuse
I have more than five minutes a day to spend on what "I enjoy". Marvellous.
I find pleasure in my passions, children are not one of those.
kristina.
>
>
kristina
Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:2o%04.58447$C7.26...@news1.teleport.com...
> kristina wrote
> > Yes, this is one hell of a subject, you are right. My own experience is
> > that the majority of art students in college are female. the percentage
> is
> > alarming, something like 80% females and the remainder are 20%males,
> > naturally. what is interesting is that the most likely to go on into
art
> > after university are the small amount of male students, achieving a
larger
> > degree of success, as opposed to the females.
>
> achieve any degree of financial success from their art, male or female.
From
> a Surrealist point of view, where art is a medium for discovery, I'm sure
> both men and women have had *success* ... gender is irrelevant to forced
> inspiration.
Perhaps I was too general there. What I am talking about is not "material"
success, or fame or fortune or even recognition. I am talking about
"continuing on in the creative media". Whether that be writing, painting,
whatever. Women, tend to leave everything ALONE, full stop! (This is in my
experience and from what I have SEEN). where as men will be MORE LIKELY and
have been to keep going on in their creative pursuits. Brandon, I am not
discussing Surrealism here, I am talking about how women tend to leave their
dreams behind, and "personal vision" when they get married, have children,
get a partner, etc. It does not matter what field or profession we are
speaking of...
Maybe this doesn't happen in the rest of the world, it certainly happens
here....
I do know people who have made a living from going to art school...
Gender is irrelevant to FORCED inspiration...I'm not talking about forced
inspiration. I don't believe in that bullshit. What is "forced
inspiration" anyway? Sounds like something "craft" people do when they sit
down and draw their little apple tree pictures...regardless of gender!
Hope this clarifies what I was talking about.
kristina.
>
>
dale houstman
>
> Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
> news:2o%04.58447$C7.26...@news1.teleport.com...
>I am not discussing Surrealism here, I am talking about >how women tend to
leave their dreams behind, and >"personal vision" when they get married,
have children,
> get a partner, etc.
From my personal observation this is unfortunately true. It is related - of
course - to the entire idea of Woman as an Ideal (an idea proliferated by
the Surrealists but hardly invetned by them); unscathed by acheivement,
"there" for her adoring man, unattached to worldly pursuit, etc.
I have seen absolutely extraordinary women snuffed out when they married a
wet-blanket husband.
Again - this is probably different in different cultures, although I think
it has been relatively ubiquitous in the West. And it goes without saying
that there are exceptions.
Dale "In Touch with His Lady Speed Stick Side" Houstman
dale houstman
<parono...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8229t6$llc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <SqF04.56561$C7.25...@news1.teleport.com>,
> "Brandon J. Freels" <fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > The Surrealist Project has never supported sexism.
>
> Are you asserting that you personally do not engage in >sexist behaviour
within this news group?
Obviously - although that may be true - that is not what he said here.
> > There is no manifesto that I can recall that attacks >women.
>
> What do you do to stop the attacks?
>
Which attacks? He said there were none...
The question of Surrealism's "sexism" has to studied within the context of
the time: the surrealist concepts of the Idealized Woman is (in modern
terms) sexist and limiting. This was not so clear in the twenties. Although
Surrealism has no manifesto attacking women, it also contains very little in
the way of a reinvestigation of its own attitudes towards women, and at
least two women who come to mind - Carrington and Kahlo - were amused by the
rather 19th century glow of pottering romanticism vis a vis "Woman." Still,
it was a movement that welcomed the participation of a large number of
women, certainly more than in other "art movements" of the day.
DMH
John Haber
add Oppenheim.
BTW, I got back to MOMA to see the last floor of "Modern Starts:
People, Places, Things" (the first three decades' worth of their
two-year-long millenial celebration). One pairing puts the chair with
the bicycle wheel coming out of it next to some chairs by stellar
modernist designers. I don't know if it means anything, but it's
cute.
The one pairing that really grabbed me was a Gaudi screen next to a
Rodchenko mobile. They seem such opposite sensibilities, but it
worked. You saw intricacies in the latter, in the freedom with which
it hung, the open slats, and the myriad shadows; you saw the latter
less over the top. OTOH, lots of the pairings really were
meaningless, and my favorite wall was probably just the Cezanne still
lifes. I'll stick to a line in the review I posted of the other
floors before I saw "Things": whadya bet it won't include a single
movie monster.
Brandon J. Freels
> I am talking about how women tend to leave their dreams behind, and
"personal
not matter
> what field or profession we are speaking of...
Can't argue with that. Although, this happens to just about everyone living
in a capitalist system. Maybe more drastically with women? My father got
married, had children, which forced him to get an awful job he hates, but
most importantly, he lost all his DREAMS. He's miserable. I don't even know
who the man is, because his desires are dead. He left it all behind, and
abandoned his "personal vision." Now that he is no longer responsable for
his family he is still stuck in that system of banality. He hasn't regained
any of his dreams.
> Gender is irrelevant to FORCED inspiration...I'm not talking about forced
inspiration. > I don't believe in that bullshit. What is "forced
inspiration" anyway?
"Forced inspiration" is the driving concept behind the art of Surrealism.
For more see Max Ernst, collage, frottage, decalcomania.
Brandon J. Freels
> Are you asserting that you personally do not engage in sexist behaviour
within this
> news group?
Are you asserting that I do?
> What do you do to stop the attacks?
What attacks?
John Haber
>After sleeping on the topic my memory remembered that Breton did eventually
>loosen up.
It doesn't atone for Breton, but it's ironic how deeply interested in
that period is my favorite of the artists who really do get away with
games about sexual deviance, Nayland Blake.
John Haber
>The question of Surrealism's "sexism" has to studied within the context of
>the time: the surrealist concepts of the Idealized Woman is (in modern
>terms) sexist and limiting. This was not so clear in the twenties. Although
>Surrealism has no manifesto attacking women, it also contains very little in
>the way of a reinvestigation of its own attitudes towards women, and at
>least two women who come to mind - Carrington and Kahlo - were amused by the
>rather 19th century glow of pottering romanticism vis a vis "Woman." Still,
>it was a movement that welcomed the participation of a large number of
>women, certainly more than in other "art movements" of the day.
I like that. I might be harsher, but the rundown of their limitations
is very concise, and I certainly agree with not letting investigation
of limits become dismissive rather than illuminating.
I recently read a really nice book on real sexism in relation to
modern women artists who achieved something anyhow, "Three Artists
(Three Women): Modernism and the Art of Hesse, Krasner, and O'Keeffe,"
by Anne Middleton Wagner. Worth checking out. In context of this
thread, Eva Hesse's work on the borderline between a kind of
remarkable revival of Surrealism and breakthrough Minimalism is
fascinating.
Leo Sgouros
dale houstman <dm...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8231ds$g9a$2...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> kristina <bu...@start.com.au> wrote in message
> news:8227ma$6hd$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au...
> >
> > Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
> > news:2o%04.58447$C7.26...@news1.teleport.com...
to
> leave their dreams behind, and >"personal vision" when they get married,
> have children,
> > get a partner, etc.
>
of
> course - to the entire idea of Woman as an Ideal (an idea proliferated by
> the Surrealists but hardly invetned by them); unscathed by acheivement,
> "there" for her adoring man, unattached to worldly pursuit, etc.
>
> I have seen absolutely extraordinary women snuffed out when they married a
> wet-blanket husband.
>
> Again - this is probably different in different cultures, although I think
> it has been relatively ubiquitous in the West. And it goes without saying
> that there are exceptions.
>
> Dale "In Touch with His Lady Speed Stick Side" Houstman
>
>
I am more of a 'Secret' guy.
No, really!
dale houstman
I am quite "European" in this regard: I prefer my own juices. They come in a
very handy package (always there when you need them) and the delivery system
is instantaneous and rather evenly spread. I prefer hard-ons to roll-ons,
and secretions to secrets. I think "Ban" is atrociously oppressive.
DMH
Brandon J. Freels
<parono...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:824eu9$84r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8231qe$gjb$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "dale houstman" <dm...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > <parono...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:8229t6$llc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <SqF04.56561$C7.25...@news1.teleport.com>,
> > > "Brandon J. Freels" <fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > The Surrealist Project has never supported sexism.
> > >
> > > Are you asserting that you personally do not engage in sexist
> behaviour
> > within this news group?
> >
> > Obviously - although that may be true - that is not what he said here.
> Correct, "never supporting" a behaviour does not mean that a person or
> group does not engage in it.
>
> A direct question:
> Do you personally engage in sexist behaviour within this newsgroup?
> Yes or No.
> Please explain your response.
> First Mr. Houstman__?
> Then Mr. Freels (please allow him to answer for himself).
>
>
> Brandon J. Freels said:
> > > > There is no manifesto that I can recall that attacks women.
> > >
> > > What do you do to stop the attacks?
> > >
> > Which attacks? He said there were none...
>
> He did NOT say there were none.
> He said, "The Surrealist Project has never *supported* sexism".
> Again, "not supporting" does not equal or equate with "not engaging
> in."
>
>
> To Mssrs. Freel and Houstman:
> Please respond to the questions by speaking about YOUR behaviour,
> within the context of *this* Surrealist Project, as explored within
> this news group in the past few weeks.
> Please limit your responses to the above.
> Finally, how many women participate in your Surrealist Project,
> here in this news group.
> What are their handles?
>
> >
> > The question of Surrealism's "sexism" has to studied within the
> context of
> > the time: the surrealist concepts of the Idealized Woman is (in modern
> > terms) sexist and limiting. This was not so clear in the twenties.
> Although
> > Surrealism has no manifesto attacking women, it also contains very
> little in
> > the way of a reinvestigation of its own attitudes towards women...
>
> It's the late nineties now. Are you and Mr. Freels reinvestigating
> your own attitudes towards women?
>
> > DMH
dale houstman
<parono...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:824eu9$84r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8231qe$gjb$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "dale houstman" <dm...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> Do you personally engage in sexist behaviour within this newsgroup?
> Yes or No.
> Please explain your response.
Who the hell are you, the Grand Inquisitor, or just my Dad?
> First Mr. Houstman__?
Okay: no...
> Then Mr. Freels (please allow him to answer for himself).
If you can be so pushy why can't I answer for someone else? You seem to have
developed the strange notion that this is a private forum. No such thing...
>
>
> Brandon J. Freels said:
> > > > There is no manifesto that I can recall that attacks women.
> > >
> > > What do you do to stop the attacks?
> > >
> > Which attacks? He said there were none...
>
> He did NOT say there were none.
He said there were no attacks in surrealist literature. This amounts to the
one and the same within the context of your (admittedly vapid) question.
> He said, "The Surrealist Project has never *supported* sexism".
No, he said there were no attacks in surrealist literature; you reposted
yourself above. At any rate, I have answered this at length elsewhere. It is
not my concern if your reading abilities seem to be hampered by your dogged
vapidity.
>
> To Mssrs. Freel and Houstman:
> Please respond to the questions by speaking about YOUR behaviour,
I have every right to respond to a question in any manner I please. Since
your original question was concerning Breton's attitudes and how they
manifested themselves in his life, the answers are more correctly stated in
reference to him and the group. Your redirected question - although possibly
productive - is still quite off the subject at hand.
> Please limit your responses to the above.
Again, I suggest you get a small dog to control, and cease believing I'm
your puppet.
> Finally, how many women participate in your Surrealist Project,
> here in this news group.
Kristina! answer for the man. As for the existence or not of others, if
there are not many others, this is simply because they haven't shown up yet.
I welcome them to. Any one of them could have Nik's place without a peep of
complaint from me.
> What are their handles?
Tiny little procelain ones like on a tea cup.
> It's the late nineties now. Are you and Mr. Freels reinvestigating
> your own attitudes towards women?
Again (since you seem so dense to the obvious) the question being
investigated was Breton;s attitudes. As for mine, I have done plenty of
thinking on such things, and feel no need in the least to defend myself on
the subject.
DMH
Kay
parono...@my-deja.com wrote in message <824s95$hck$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
:In article <H4d14.59379$C7.26...@news1.teleport.com>,:> > paronomazein wrote
(snip)
: Subject:
: Rewriting [was Re: A Few Lines]
: Date:
: 1999/11/28
: Author:
:Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com>
:
:
:
:she lies red-faced looking up at the knight's thigh
:his star dust fall onto her palms
:she tries to smile under his glass boot
:his piss covers her lips, nipples, and breasts
:he pisses all over the Laurel leaves too
:she spits from her throat regurgitated urine
Try it in the snow. I hear that is a lot of fun (guy thing). Otherwise, they
charge extra for this kind of stuff...
: (to be continued...)
:
:
:she dies faces blue, while hooking up the night sky
:her special wire bra tries to ride down her glass sleaves
:she accidently bumps all of the beads into Laurel's face
Do you write for Harlequin Romance books?
Brandon J. Freels
> Yes, I am. One of your postings is below. Is it sexist to you?
> Did SHE ask for this before she died?
> What is your story below, if not a attack?
> Please explain.
For the first snippet of mine you quoted: Sadism, sex mixed with violence,
is not sexism or misogyny. Look up the definitions. They are all different.
Nor is sadism an attack, but a *game* played out by both a submissive
masochist and an aggressive sadist. The sadist achieves no sexual
gratification if the masochist achieves no sexual gratification. They both
enjoy must *the act*. I am also assuming that you have something against
*golden showers*, yes or no?
For the second snipet of mine you quoted: When I wrote "dies" I meant "dyes"
like one would dye a *color* [in this case *blue*]. It was a typo.
> she lies red-faced looking up at the knight's thigh
> his star dust fall onto her palms
> she tries to smile under his glass boot
> his piss covers her lips, nipples, and breasts
> he pisses all over the Laurel leaves too
> she spits from her throat regurgitated urine
>
parono...@my-deja.com
"dale houstman" <dm...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> <parono...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > In article <SqF04.56561$C7.25...@news1.teleport.com>,
> >
> > > The Surrealist Project has never supported sexism.
> >
behaviour
> within this news group?
>
> Obviously - although that may be true - that is not what he said here.
Correct, "never supporting" a behaviour does not mean that a person or
group does not engage in it.
A direct question:
Do you personally engage in sexist behaviour within this newsgroup?
Yes or No.
Please explain your response.
First Mr. Houstman__?
Then Mr. Freels (please allow him to answer for himself).
Brandon J. Freels said:
> > > There is no manifesto that I can recall that attacks women.
> >
> > What do you do to stop the attacks?
> >
> Which attacks? He said there were none...
He did NOT say there were none.
He said, "The Surrealist Project has never *supported* sexism".
Again, "not supporting" does not equal or equate with "not engaging
in."
To Mssrs. Freel and Houstman:
Please respond to the questions by speaking about YOUR behaviour,
within the context of *this* Surrealist Project, as explored within
this news group in the past few weeks.
Please limit your responses to the above.
Finally, how many women participate in your Surrealist Project,
here in this news group.
What are their handles?
>
> The question of Surrealism's "sexism" has to studied within the
context of
> the time: the surrealist concepts of the Idealized Woman is (in modern
> terms) sexist and limiting. This was not so clear in the twenties.
Although
> Surrealism has no manifesto attacking women, it also contains very
little in
> the way of a reinvestigation of its own attitudes towards women...
It's the late nineties now. Are you and Mr. Freels reinvestigating
your own attitudes towards women?
> DMH
kristina
news:8231ds$g9a$2...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> kristina <bu...@start.com.au> wrote in message
> news:8227ma$6hd$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au...
> >
> > Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
> > news:2o%04.58447$C7.26...@news1.teleport.com...
> >I am not discussing Surrealism here, I am talking about >how women tend
to
> leave their dreams behind, and >"personal vision" when they get married,
> have children,
> > get a partner, etc.
>
> From my personal observation this is unfortunately true. It is related -
of
> course - to the entire idea of Woman as an Ideal (an idea proliferated by
> the Surrealists but hardly invetned by them); unscathed by acheivement,
> "there" for her adoring man, unattached to worldly pursuit, etc.
>
> I have seen absolutely extraordinary women snuffed out when they married a
> wet-blanket husband.
>
> Again - this is probably different in different cultures, although I think
> it has been relatively ubiquitous in the West. And it goes without saying
> that there are exceptions.
>
> Dale "In Touch with His Lady Speed Stick Side" Houstman
ohhh this is a nice breath here...I will sit and relax in it for a while.
Yes, seriously, thank you...this is pretty much what I was saying.
kristina.
did I read something somewhere about roll-ons? Ha ha ha...and it has been a
good morning for laughs!
>
>
kristina
Leo Sgouros <lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:owd14.45841$435.1...@typhoon2.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> No, really!
okay, ...but does it come in Black?
kristina.
>
>
kristina
> kristina wrote
> > I am talking about how women tend to leave their dreams behind, and
> "personal
does
> not matter
> > what field or profession we are speaking of...
>
> Can't argue with that. Although, this happens to just about everyone
living
> in a capitalist system. Maybe more drastically with women? My father got
> married, had children, which forced him to get an awful job he hates, but
> most importantly, he lost all his DREAMS. He's miserable. I don't even
know
> who the man is, because his desires are dead. He left it all behind, and
> abandoned his "personal vision." Now that he is no longer responsable for
> his family he is still stuck in that system of banality. He hasn't
regained
> any of his dreams.
Yeah it is something that pretty much happens to people across the board.
My parents came out from croatia when I was one and neither spoke Australian
at all...they worked in factories, did what people told them to do without
question, and worked on building a life. I can't really speak "literally"
for them, but I do know that the whole concept of "getting an education" was
really important for both when it came to my brother and I. In saying all
of this, basically, both are rather creative and interesting people, and
their views on life are rather confronting for me at times...weird, I think
I am so different to them, and then the similarities are right. (usually
when ti comes to stubborness and moody sort of behaviour.....ha ha).
I think my parents today still see my brother and I as having a "greater
opportunity" in life than they have/did. I have alot of questions regarding
"how they feel about life", but we all live so far away these days, there is
always something happening that keeps these little mysteries for another
time...
>
> > Gender is irrelevant to FORCED inspiration...I'm not talking about
forced
> inspiration. > I don't believe in that bullshit. What is "forced
> inspiration" anyway?
>
> "Forced inspiration" is the driving concept behind the art of Surrealism.
> For more see Max Ernst, collage, frottage, decalcomania.
Thanks Brandon, I'll check that out too...another thing for my list of
things to do!
kristina.
>
>
parono...@my-deja.com
"Brandon J. Freels" <fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
> > paronomazein wrote
> > Are you asserting that you personally do not engage in sexist
> > behaviour within this news group?
>
Yes, I am. One of your postings is below. Is it sexist to you?
Did SHE ask for this before she died?
>
> > What do you do to stop the attacks?
>
> What attacks?
What is your story below, if not a attack?
Please explain.
Subject:
Rewriting [was Re: A Few Lines]
Date:
1999/11/28
Author:
Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com>
she lies red-faced looking up at the knight's thigh
his star dust fall onto her palms
she tries to smile under his glass boot
his piss covers her lips, nipples, and breasts
he pisses all over the Laurel leaves too
she spits from her throat regurgitated urine
(to be continued...)
she dies faces blue, while hooking up the night sky
her special wire bra tries to ride down her glass sleaves
she accidently bumps all of the beads into Laurel's face
Leo Sgouros
>
> Leo Sgouros <lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:owd14.45841$435.1...@typhoon2.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > dale houstman <dm...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:8231ds$g9a$2...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net...
> > >
> > > kristina <bu...@start.com.au> wrote in message
> > > news:8227ma$6hd$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au...
> > > >
> > > > Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:2o%04.58447$C7.26...@news1.teleport.com...
tend
> > to
> > > leave their dreams behind, and >"personal vision" when they get
> married,
> > > have children,
> > > > get a partner, etc.
> > >
related -
> > of
> > > course - to the entire idea of Woman as an Ideal (an idea proliferated
> by
> > > the Surrealists but hardly invetned by them); unscathed by
acheivement,
> > > "there" for her adoring man, unattached to worldly pursuit, etc.
> > >
> > > I have seen absolutely extraordinary women snuffed out when they
married
> a
> > > wet-blanket husband.
> > >
> > > Again - this is probably different in different cultures, although I
> think
> > > it has been relatively ubiquitous in the West. And it goes without
> saying
> > > that there are exceptions.
> > >
> > > Dale "In Touch with His Lady Speed Stick Side" Houstman
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I am more of a 'Secret' guy.
> > No, really!
>
> okay, ...but does it come in Black?
> kristina.
> >
> >
>
>
Powder blue cans.
For him, too.
Womanly, yes, but I like it too.
Its magically attritious.
el...@localhost.localdomain
>
> To Mssrs. Freel and Houstman:
> Please respond to the questions by speaking about YOUR behaviour,
> within the context of *this* Surrealist Project, as explored within
> this news group in the past few weeks.
> Please limit your responses to the above.
> Finally, how many women participate in your Surrealist Project,
> here in this news group.
> What are their handles?
That's pretty funny.
How do you know the people you address aren't women? I don't recall
them explicitly saying so....
_
kristina
<el...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:slrn84bp0...@localhost.localdomain...
Yes, this is a good point. One asking for clarification and assetring
assumptions all in one breath. And I agree this is"hysterical". A laugh at
themselves perhaps? don't ever assume, it is boring!
Mr. kristina.
>
> _
Leo Sgouros
<parono...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:824s95$hck$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Oh golly we have a winner here.
Are you of the opinion that this surrealism has to accurately reflect some
reality?
Are you under the impression that these writings should be taken for some
sort of face value?
Perhaps you are going to psychoanalyze the writings and proclaim"aha, this
is your true nature, this jumble of words labled thus by my self"
"Did you wear a black armband when they shot the man who said
peace could lastforever
and in myfirst memory they shot Kennedy
I went numb when I learned to see
so I never fell for Vetnam, we got the wall at DC to remind us all
that you cant trust freedom when its not in your hand
when everybody's fighting for the promised land"
Guns and Fucking Roses, "Civil War"
Look, Brandon and Dale may have made some weird statements about anorexia
and some others that appear sexist(yes, I think folks this is leftover pain
from this *episode*)but I do not believe in real life they are monsters or
truly sexist.
And if they are, so what?
So they dont get laid.
No loss for you, eh?
::beep beep::
Brandon J. Freels
SEXISM
"Discrimination based on gender, although sexism is most often understood as
discrimination specifically against women."
[from http://www.arts.ouc.bc.ca/fiar/glossary/gloshome.html ]
SADISM
"A condition in which there is a derivation of pleasure from inflicting
pain, discomfort or humiliation on another person or persons. The sexual
significance of sadistic wishes or behaviour may be conscious or
unconscious."
[from http://www.graylab.ac.uk/omd/index.html ]
MISOGYNY
"Hatred of women." [from
http://www.arts.ouc.bc.ca/fina/glossary/gloshome.html ]
kristina
Really! I CAN'T believe you are so dense as to literally subject creativity
and art to such small ways of thinking. I ignored your pompous questioing
of Dale and Brandon's "belief system" pertaining to women and surrealism, as
I felt your post was largely laughable and somewhat neurotic to boot! This
only confirms my initial thoughts were correct. So you think Brandon's poem
is sexist! Get a life...
Yes, I am a woman, and not the only one here either...but I have better
things to do than converse with idiots!
kris-my-ass-tina. (that's Mr to you).
kristina
Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:cfp14.60464$C7.26...@news1.teleport.com...
> paronomazein wrote
> > Yes, I am. One of your postings is below. Is it sexist to you?
> > Did SHE ask for this before she died?
> > Please explain.
>
> is not sexism or misogyny. Look up the definitions. They are all
different.
> Nor is sadism an attack, but a *game* played out by both a submissive
> masochist and an aggressive sadist. The sadist achieves no sexual
> gratification if the masochist achieves no sexual gratification. They both
> enjoy must *the act*. I am also assuming that you have something against
> *golden showers*, yes or no?
I don't think what-ever-their-name-is, has any idea of the difference
between misogyny and sex...some people overly simplify every thing...
> For the second snipet of mine you quoted: When I wrote "dies" I meant
"dyes"
> like one would dye a *color* [in this case *blue*]. It was a typo.
Does it really matter anyway Brandon? I don't see that there is any need
for jusitfication here...(you indulge where I would most certainly just
laugh at...you are more patient than me).
kristina.
kristina
>
> <parono...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:824eu9$84r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <8231qe$gjb$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net>,
> > "dale houstman" <dm...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > >
>
> > Do you personally engage in sexist behaviour within this newsgroup?
> > Yes or No.
> > Please explain your response.
>
>
> > First Mr. Houstman__?
>
> Okay: no...
>
>
have
> developed the strange notion that this is a private forum. No such
thing...
> >
> >
> > > > > There is no manifesto that I can recall that attacks women.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > He did NOT say there were none.
>
the
> one and the same within the context of your (admittedly vapid) question.
>
>
> yourself above. At any rate, I have answered this at length elsewhere. It
is
> not my concern if your reading abilities seem to be hampered by your
dogged
> vapidity.
>
> >
> > Please respond to the questions by speaking about YOUR behaviour,
>
> your original question was concerning Breton's attitudes and how they
> manifested themselves in his life, the answers are more correctly stated
in
> reference to him and the group. Your redirected question - although
possibly
> productive - is still quite off the subject at hand.
>
>
> your puppet.
>
> > here in this news group.
>
> there are not many others, this is simply because they haven't shown up
yet.
> I welcome them to. Any one of them could have Nik's place without a peep
of
> complaint from me.
YES!!! It is all True, I was found last night in the alley with a billboard
hanging off my pierced nipples saying the words "I am not an Animal... I am
a WOMAN!" There is more but it only falls on deaf ears anyway, so I won't
waste my time. Something to do with dreams of Brandon and Dale...handles
and The Earl Of Grey told me all his nasty fantasies, it was marvellous.
I'm still so very aromatic here... (see paronomazein there is such a thing
called "humour" you should try it sometime).
kristina.
> > What are their handles?
>
> Tiny little procelain ones like on a tea cup.
>
> > It's the late nineties now. Are you and Mr. Freels reinvestigating
> > your own attitudes towards women?
>
dale houstman
Though this is more than enough to refute the "charge" (ineptly put as it
was), I would go even further and state that EVEN IF your original snippet
were a frenzy of supposedly sexist vignettes, fantasy is a critical issue:
it implies no discrimination and cannot be "judged" in this turgid Court of
Law as evidence. People have an absolute right to their imaginative
processes and content, and the arena of sexism is filled with actors and
politicians not dreamers and lovers. I once had a recurring dream of
shooting a friend of mine - for some slight and now forgiven "wrong" done -
but there isn't a procedure for condemning me as a murderer based on such
cognitive sparks and arcs. Despite a christian attitude that says one is
guilty in thought and deed, and the secular scum who would take up versions
of such idiocy, I reassert all people's right to a full imaginative display
of any and all flotsam or jetsam of the mind.
Screw the Grand Inquisitor!
DMH
Nikolaus Maack
>MISOGYNY
While they're all different, they're not mutually exclusive. One can
be a sexist, sadistic misogynist, for example. But I think what you
wrote was okay, because in that piece of writing you were a sexist,
misogynistic sadist, and that makes all the difference.
Nik
---
Postcard-sized portraits -- $20.
You find the face, I pick the paint. See:
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~mrtribe
Brandon J. Freels
> ... fantasy is a critical issue: it implies no discrimination and cannot
be "judged" in
> this turgid Court of Law as evidence. People have an absolute right to
their
full imaginative > display of any and all flotsam or jetsam of the mind.
Good point. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Nikolaus Maack
I said:
>> While they're all different, they're not mutually exclusive. One can
>> be a sexist, sadistic misogynist, for example. But I think what you
>> wrote was okay, because in that piece of writing you were a sexist,
>> misogynistic sadist, and that makes all the difference.
Kristina:
>You've got to be joking! None of what you just wrote makes any sense to
>me...(in all seriousness). Therefore I assume it is a "joke"...can't think
>of any other explanation...
You're slowly learning to understand me, Kristina. You have passed
Level One. Yes, I was joking.
Now let me take you to Level Two -- all jokes contain a trace of the
serious. And all things said seriously contain a trace of a joke.
kristina
news:38464a2e....@news.ncf.carleton.ca...
> "Brandon J. Freels" <fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >See, they're all different:
> >
> >SEXISM
> >SADISM
> >MISOGYNY
>
> be a sexist, sadistic misogynist, for example. But I think what you
> wrote was okay, because in that piece of writing you were a sexist,
> misogynistic sadist, and that makes all the difference.
You've got to be joking! None of what you just wrote makes any sense to
me...(in all seriousness). Therefore I assume it is a "joke"...can't think
of any other explanation...
kristina.
Leo Sgouros
I agree.
Is he on the End Of Days soundtrack song, "Oh My God"?
> Ever hear these songs? From 'Hello Nasty' by the Beastie Boys.
> http://bboys.virtualave.net/nasty/lyrics.shtml#themove
>
> http://bboys.virtualave.net/nasty/lyrics.shtml#shame
>
> >
One of my ex's was an atomic Beastie Boys fanatic.
john adams
>
> http://www.magneticfields.org/blue/1.1/index.html
>
> thera
i wonder, is the tumor extractable beyond a certain point of growth before
the cancer spreads like a dark blanket covering our helpless eyes?
(barrett, we need to get you an image smoothening program mister.)
dale houstman
cythera <luk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:827k55$grn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <cfp14.60464$C7.26...@news1.teleport.com>,> I sent you a post today. It had a typo as well. In it I said
> you're smarter than the *clunks* around you.
> I mean, of course, the clique-clunks.
Do I get to be one? My clunk clicks when I sling it. I think its
articulations are encrusted with a cognitive calcium sheath. Talks all night
about gutting sheep in a aeroplane hangar.
DMH
Brandon J. Freels
> Do I get to be one? My clunk clicks when I sling it. I think its
> articulations are encrusted with a cognitive calcium sheath. Talks all
night
> about gutting sheep in a aeroplane hangar.
Don't you mean "hang her" [not "hangar"], or am I reading to much into this?
dale houstman
Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:UES14.62745$C7.27...@news1.teleport.com...
Hadn't thought about it, when the cognitive calcium sheath talks it does
have a way of slurring its words, so it's possible.
DMH
>
kristina
> [Sexist, Mysogynist, Sadist]
>
> I said:
> >> be a sexist, sadistic misogynist, for example. But I think what you
> >> wrote was okay, because in that piece of writing you were a sexist,
> >> misogynistic sadist, and that makes all the difference.
>
> >You've got to be joking! None of what you just wrote makes any sense to
> >me...(in all seriousness). Therefore I assume it is a "joke"...can't
think
> >of any other explanation...
>
> Level One. Yes, I was joking.
great...what can I say...learning is good.
>
> Now let me take you to Level Two -- all jokes contain a trace of the
> serious. And all things said seriously contain a trace of a joke.
I will keep that in mind Nik, although I don't entirely agree with you, but
then I am too SERIUOS most of the time, (on the internet anyway) I need to
loosen up and fly uptight!
Leo Sgouros
--
Choose mind control, often.
www.mkshadows.net
cythera <luk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:829m5t$vml$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <I8F14.49362$435.1...@typhoon2.tampabay.rr.com>,
> "Leo Sgouros" <lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > > G 'n' FR sounded better with Slash.
>
> > I agree.
> > Is he on the End Of Days soundtrack song, "Oh My God"?
> Maybe you can ask my x-neighbor 'Z'. She loved that group, and when a
> friend and I would be in my apt., arguing, she'd turn on G 'n'
> FR, and blast us to kingdom come! Where luckily no one's ever heard
> of that band.
>
> >
> > > Ever hear these songs? From 'Hello Nasty' by the Beastie Boys.
> > > http://bboys.virtualave.net/nasty/lyrics.shtml#themove
> > >
> > > http://bboys.virtualave.net/nasty/lyrics.shtml#shame
> > >
> > > >
> >
> > One of my ex's was an atomic Beastie Boys fanatic.
> And now do you wear gigantic pants, with your undies showing down to
> your bottom? that would be surreal, in case anyone wants to try it.
>
>
>
Naw, that would be following the hip hop look-
actually, I just cut off all my hair and had it colored bright ruby red-
no, really!
> --
> cythera
Brandon J. Freels
> Hey Mr this is what happens when you read the dribble on bathroom walls.
And by dribble you mean?
a) a clear, transparent fluid excretion from the kidneys that is of an amber
colour and peculiar odour, with an average density of 1.02
b) a loose, and watery bowel movement
c) a fluid released at orgasm which contains sperm and secretions from the
prostate gland
d) a fluid in the mouth that helps to decompose the food
Brandon J. Freels
elag
Dribble a basket full of balls.
Brandon J. Freels
> Brandon, I'm stealing a tie for you tonight. Please try to be satified
> with that!
I don't even wear a suit.
dale houstman
> In article <F1p24.64557$C7.28...@news1.teleport.com>,
> off F. Lee Bailey.
> Do ya want his briefs? Yay or Nay
>
Whoa! That joke is so lame I want to knock it over and steal its groceries.
DMH