In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

Try Advanced Search

  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

« Saving a Dying Town | Main | Elsewhere »

July 03, 2007

S.T. on Performing, and On New York City

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards--

A pro performer with more than a few years of putting it out for audiences under his belt, Shouting Thomas responds to my recent posting about barnstorming across America: here and here. Fun writing from someone who knows the life and the scene far better than I do.

ST also makes a point that I think is key cultural history, and that I want to underline: the way that the arts life in Manhattan has become, to be blunt about it, unsexy. These days, it can be hard even to remember, but the NYC downtown-edgy / arts-boho scene was once a hot and tingly thing. People often went into the arts because it was -- or at least seemed to be -- a sexy thing to do, as well as a sexy life to lead. What-the-hell provocation and foolhardy eroticism were cultivated for their own sweet sakes. When you went downtown, you expected and you usually encountered a lot of lewd and sometimes even joyous carrying-on.

But the scene began to dry up in the early 1980s. (Dammit -- I moved here in the late '70s to take part in it myself.) What caused this development? As ST notes, the gay-ification and the feminization of the arts certainly played roles. As politically-motivated rebels moved into positions of responsibility, the clamps were tightened. Drear descended.

I'll add to ST's list of causes Boomer remorse, the new careerism, the beginnings of political correctness, and the continuing entrenchment of the arts-administrator class. Art -- even far-out art -- now had to be "smart" and worthy, and not just worthy but a specific kind of arts-funding worthy. Artists grew more concerned with shrewd moves, nabbing funding, and self-positioning than with cutting loose. Nudity, hotness, and arousingness were now understood to be cause for worry and concern.

The upshot: If anyone was going to strip, it was probably going to be a gay man. And the rationale for the naked or provocative moment wouldn't be to raise temperatures, but to sell a boringly-predictable political message.

Though we've left the worst of those days behind us, it seems to me that its shadow lingers still. The Wife and I brush up against the Suicide Girls and po-mo burlesque scene occasionally, for instance. (Nasty Canasta is one of our faves.) And for all the naughtiness, personality, and gifts on display, everything's very knowing. There are quote marks around quote marks, and ironies buried within attitudes.

Still, I'm hopeful and cheery. It seems to me that the layers of post-irony represent nothing but kids who have survived contempo upbringings throwing up pre-emptive defences against teachers and parents -- against P.C. superegos.

Although too much energy may still be going into self-protection, the more important point is that edgy young people are once again throwing caution to the winds. Hallelujah: Arty kids are misbehaving sexily. (What else do you want them to do? It isn't as though they have anything substantial on their minds ...) And, as far as I can tell, the basic motivation behind much of the acting-out seems to be "because it feels good," "because it's silly fun," and "because it's a turn-on to show off what I've got." Hotness and tingliness -- of a non-mainstream, non-pop-culture sort -- are once again being shown some of the respect they deserve.

I'll argue with a semi-straight face that exhibitionism, silliness, and the pursuit of sexy feelings for their own sake are the origins of much good art. Well, of much of the art that I enjoy, anyway.



posted by Michael at July 3, 2007


Aren't silliness and pursuit of sexy feelings just back "in" all the way around? For awhile now? Myspace has been full of photos of naked college girls all across the country--flyover country--drunk and riding the statue in front of the Dean's house, etc., for several years now. And not to "get a part" or "explore art"--just to have agenda-less fun. To the point where a bit of sobriety---the reminder that employers will actually check this stuff out and might be less impressed by it than college boys---has been published several times, dreary though it may be. I guess what I am saying is it doesn't sound like the "arts", or New York, are ahead of anything here. Just barely keeping up, is more like it.

I don't really believe this is generally true of MBlowhard, but you did sound a bit like the classic myopic New Yorker when you were amazed that Pittsburgh---and actually many other such cities like it---had a thriving arts scene and had, you know, heard of sex! I think the rest of the country knew that probably a good twenty years ago. It's like if the arts weren't thriving in New York, it was a drag--but they were surely thriving there more than anywhere!! I don't think that's necessarily true. And particularly for cities like Chicago (and even Toronto)--I don't think it was ever true. Again, apologoes, but I think it is New York that is running a bit behind, and has been for quite some time.

Posted by: annette on July 3, 2007 1:20 PM

I can remember just how wide open New York City was when I arrived in the mid-1970s. I'd been lured here by reading Henry Miller... and nothing had changed since the turn of the century.

It really was wild. Plato's, the hetero swap club, was going full bore on the Upper West Side. The gay bath house scene at St. Mark's Place was off the wall. And raw dives featuring non-stop sexual performances of every conceivable variety were the norm in Times Square. This public sex scene was only the superficial sign that, in private, all hell was breaking loose.

You know, Michael, as the third anniversary of Myrna's departure from this world approaches, I am flooded with memories of her last weeks and months. She wants her story told. She was always so blunt about that. She was a bellweather. I feel as though a great sexual and moral prophet passed through my life. Her experience and wisdom in this part of my life were so awesome that I feel less than adequate to try to relate her prophecy.

But, I'm going to try, because I think that that is really what you want to know. All my life, I was waiting for her to arrive. When I read Henry Miller, I realized that I was waiting for her.

I'll start today.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on July 3, 2007 1:39 PM

Annette -- Yeah, it's really dismaying that the big-city place that wants to consider itself "where it's really happening" is in fact so far behind the rest of the country in so many ways. The arty-cultural intellectual scene isn't nearly as fresh as the biz-think scene, for instance. And where acting-out and having fun goes, many people in the heartland seem 'way freer and more uninhibited than the self-consciously edgy big-city set. Sometimes makes me wonder what I'm doing here.

How'd this happen? It's as though bohemia did itself in -- or maybe that the politicos and careerizers took it over. And once bohemia isn't selling turn-ons any longer, what becomes of it? What's its rationale? What's nice about the current scene (I hope anyway) is that hip big-city kids are starting to figure out an appealing package that offers more offbeat pleasures that the mainstream does.

But what a weird time more generally, no? The self-consciously "creative" set seems so far behind the unself-conscious mainstream in so many ways. I think the creative set would do well to acknowledge that they're followers rather than leaders at this point and work from there -- at least they'd have some realism to base whatever they want to contribute on.

My own wee 2 cents in the midst of this is to wonder what became of the grace and poetry. The boho set threw poetic eroticism away when they embraced P.C. The mainstream can be sweetly nutty and inventive, god knows. But there isn't a lot of poetry in the usual mainstream package either, however uninhibited it can get these days -- Spring Break, Britney, dirty standup comedy, mall movies, videogames, etc.

Topsy turvy world. And I certainly plead Guilty to New York City-centricity. If my bosses would only give me more time off, I could rectify that ...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on July 3, 2007 1:41 PM

There’s a question lurking in this post and in annette’s comment that puzzles me. New York has always been a source of the avant-garde, and if its art world had changed to a joyless PC-infested place, why hasn’t that spread to the hinterland? The reasons Michael mentioned for the drear—boomer remorse, arts-administration overload, etc.—should also have eventually kicked in (or clunked in) elsewhere. So it seems that the position of NYC’s art world has changed in two respects: in recent years it’s been a downer of a shadow of a pallid feminized replica of what it once was; and it has also lost its place as a—the?—source of future developments, including of course art, sex, sexy art and arty sex. But why? If NYC is no longer the epicentre of evolution in the art world, why has that stopped? If New York’s bohemia did itself in, why didn’t the bohos of other burgs follow as they used to? In other words, the question is not “Why New York?” but “Why just New York?”

Could it be that gayifying and feminizing something permanently removes its ability to generate artistic and social novelty? That certainly hasn’t been my impression of what happens when a place is “gayified”. Is it the feminization then? I seem to remember Camille Paglia saying something to the effect that if women ran society, we’d still be living in grass huts. Has New York feminized itself out of being a “seminal” influence on anything anymore?

Posted by: PatrickH on July 3, 2007 2:30 PM

Ok, Michael, so I gave it a try. It's my latest post at

The kids flocking into the city from the styx in the 1990s seemed to think, on the whole, that hetero sex was just too damned boring and confining, and that gay sex had it all going.

And, they seemed to also think that us old folks had never really gotten in on, and that we needed instruction. The fag hags (an army of hundreds of thousands, it seems) had this strange new ideology. "If only all men were sissified queers, world peace would descend upon us."

I found myself adrift in this world. I've always thought, and continue to think, that the good old world of hetero sex is full of drama and lust and all the things that make life worthwhile.

And, I couldn't make heads or tails out of the new generation's belief that sex hadn't really been tried until they arrived. My favorite writer is Henry Miller, and his writing makes it clear that the sexual underworld of New York City in the early 1900s was wild and featured every perversion imagineable.

The feeling in the 90s seemed to be that heterosexuality had played itself out, just wasn't that interesting any more, and that it just trapped you in a life of drudgery and boredom. This message did not play well in the hinterlands, where people ignored the feminists and gay activists and continued to screw and couple up without regard to ideology. Everybody was watching porn, widely available on the VCR, and thinking about trying that stuff out.

They did, too.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on July 3, 2007 2:36 PM

Hmmm. This is a discussion I should probably NOT enter, but it will give me something to do while I avoid work.

Answers to your questions:
1. What happened to New York City and its wild sex scene?
- many people got STDs and went home, or died
- some died of the alcoholism or drugs that made it possible for them to be uninhibited
- many of the others decided, no doubt wisely, not to have children (or couldn't, because they weren't fertile any more after all that risky sex); so there's fewer bright young things to make their way to New York now

2. What happened to poetic sexiness?
- it went commercial and turned into porn once the social and legal restrictions were removed from the latter
- hardcore sex makes more money
- hardcore sex hardens women fast; nothing left of them to make poetry with when they've done filming Fists and Whips or whatever those movies are called

3. Why are the provinces still having so much fun?
- well, I don't think they really are
- if they are it's because they didn't burn out as badly in the first place; they'll catch up eventually

What's happened to art in NYC and is it better in the hinterland?
- there's some art action in the world outside but you have to bring groups of arty people together in order to produce "creative ferment"; writers can get by without it but painters and musicians need the company of their own kind to do their best work
- there's nowhere for them to go; New York (London, Paris, etc.) is too expensive; no other creative capital has emerged

Posted by: alias clio on July 3, 2007 4:24 PM

I think clio nails it here:

"What happened to poetic sexiness?
- it went commercial and turned into porn once the social and legal restrictions were removed from the latter"

The mainstream kills what it incorporates. Sucks whatever was interesting out of it and replaces it with the crass and the obvious.

Posted by: the patriarch on July 3, 2007 4:39 PM

I wonder if sexiness, or sexual experimentation, has anything to do with art - the making of it, that is - one way or the other? In any case, Stash the truckdriver or Barney the salesman is often ten times more the sexual athlete than those with artistic aspirations. All I know is that if you've ever been to a writer's conference...these are not the great sexual animals of the age, to put it mildly. And that famous photograph of the founding generation of abstract expressionists?..they look like a bunch of accountants. Rock or jazz musicians on the other hand: sex comes with the territory. In conclusion: the tie in between sexual adventurousness and art is, I'd say, inconclusive.

Posted by: ricpic on July 4, 2007 9:14 AM

How'd this happen? It's as though bohemia did itself in -- or maybe that the politicos and careerizers took it over.

Exactly. I moved to NYC in the early 80s. My friends, all of whom were artists pursuing Art in various forms, used to meet me at the subway stop to walk me to their place in Alphabet City. I remember one of them saying "we're the downwardly mobile white trash who moves in and makes it safe for the yuppies." Which, a few years later, is exactly what happened.

There is stuff going on. We're older now, and it's harder to stay in touch with it. And it's scattered and harder to get to it, unless you're in the know--gone are the cheap rents and freedom of movement that made easy proliferation possible. But it's there.

Suicide Girls? Please. All due respect to the fine business minds and lovely bodies behind that exploitive venture, it ain't art. It's Commerce 2.0, babe.

Posted by: communicatrix on July 4, 2007 11:15 AM

ST -- Yeah, exactly: whatever happened to the Henry Miller part of bohemia?

PatrickH -- Lots of great questions. I think you're onto something about feminization. Gals (not necessarily as individuals but often in groups) will tend to be moderating influences. Book publishing has suffered from this, for example -- books today are often well-designed, color coordinated, peppy, etc -- and completely risk-free, or "naughty" in the most catty kind of way. (Book publishing has gone in the last 30 years from being 80% straight-male to being about 80% female, with most of the men on the editorial side being gay.) If you're looking for a field or culture to be a rampaging, shit-kicking thing, you probably wouldn't want it to be run by women. I wonder if what happened as so many women moved into the cultural worlds was that many of the shitkicking guys looked at it, said, "Not for me, baby," and headed into business and technology instead. You've got a good point about gays -- when they move into a neighborhood, god knows that the food and design level generally go up. But it's funny what can happen when they take over a field and are able to be open about themselves and their own concerns (as in the contempo theater, for instance): they can get boring, and a certain kind of lifestyle-cultural correctness can take over. It's a predicament -- I wish 'em well, and am glad that society's so much less hard on gayness than it once was. But I do miss the days when "gay" often meant "hilarious" and "daring."

Clio -- Avoiding work rules. A lot of good points which I'm going to do an injustice to by quibbling with. Bohemias, floating worlds, and demi-mondes have existed here and there in many different cultures without going down in flames and disintegrating in anything like the way NYC's downtown did circa the 1980s. I take this to mean that 1) there's nothing intrinsic in the fact of a demimonde that automatically means it's gonna burn out, and 2) that there was therefore something in the NYC equation that was remarkable. My own guess is that it was a combo of a few different elements: drugs, gay lib, '60s illusions (promiscuity would deliver not just good times and poetic arty rewards but religious transcendence and political liberation), and did I mention drugs? People do things on drugs (and believe things on drugs) that they never would even on booze. Things got pushed to such an extreme that that particular bohemia burned up all its capital and turned into cinders. Sexual poetry can still be found -- I commend the fairly recent Canadian pic "Lie With Me," for instance. But there's no culture of it any longer, or not much of one, and little sense that poetic sexiness is something any particular bohemia might be peddling. People have become gunshy about it for some reason, even though poetic sexiness has almost always been a big part of what floating worlds have traditionally been about. (AIDS unfortunately helped the political people take over from the what-the-hell people ...) And, hmm, I'm not sure I can go all the way with you where your theories about promiscuity go. In a very general sense I think you're onto something. But where particulars go ... Well, I've known a lot of tight, bitter women who haven't slept around, a lot of eternally-hopeful sweeties who have, and many women who wish they'd squeezed in a few more flings before settling down. (A feeling of having missed-out seems to me as likely to produce hardness as feelings of having been used can.) And there's a big diff between actresses and porn performers, generally, which may explain the different ways they tend to turn out. Actresses are often starry-eyed artists, and they seldom lose that, even though they show their bodies and feelings off professionally (and even though most of the actresses I've known have pretty promiscuous, at least by middle-class standards). Porn performers generally start off pretty toughened-up. Aside from the very first of 'em in the '60s and '70s, they generally start out doing it for the money and keep on doing it for the money -- they're tough cookies without too many dreams, at least that they'd admit to to you and me. The porn life isn't easy on anyone, but the people who go into it don't generally take a lot of personal lyricism into it in the first place.

Patriarch -- Often seems to be true, doesn't it? I wonder if that's semi-peculiar to America sometimes. Various Euro-cultures seem to cultivate poetic eroticism, for instance. We seem to have a business-driven literal-mindedness that crushes spirits, or at least that is hard on the lyrical ... I wonder why. Don't let this get around but I often wonder if we're just a nation of materialistic bozos.

Ricpic -- Yeah, I wouldn't make too many claims for it, except in a metaphorical way. Sex is to some extent about excess, about reveling in gifts, about turning it on and giving it, etc. And much art is about excess, and giving it out, and showing off what you've got, etc. So there's something of a parallel there. Like you I'd hesitate to say that it's always "sex" in the direct sense, though I'd probably be OK with "the life force" or something like that. It'd be fun to figure out a hierarchy of direct sexiness in the cultural world. Performers probably at the top -- sexually driven and sexually rewarded. Writers probably at the bottom, alas ...

Communicatrix -- We probably crossed paths on Avenue B! The Suicide Girls thing is an interesting mess, isn't it? Reminds me a bit of Rolling Stone circa 1970. Was it a legit and innovative Cultural Force? Or just a vehicle for Jan Wenner's ambitions and ego? I guess in both cases my vote goes to "both," but I can certainly see making the case for one or the other...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on July 4, 2007 4:27 PM

I see what you're getting at, Michael, and I don't exactly disagree. I made one assumption that you indicate is false: I had supposed that the women who appear in soft-core sexy/poetic films were the same ones who ended up in the hardcore gross-out ones. It was the sex in the latter to which I referred when I said that hardcore sex hardens women.

I agree that it's a pity that poetic eroticism has disappeared from movies. Or even fun sexiness, as in The Big Easy. It's one of the few things that film does decidedly better than words. I find most "eroticism" in books either a) grossly clinical (John Updike), or b) silly-embarrassing, when it tries too hard for lyricism (DH Lawrence).

I agree that frustration and disappointment can lead women (and men) to bitterness, as much as a wild sexual past. Where I would disagree is with your implicit assumption that a wild sexual past can't coexist with frustration and disappointment. My own past was hardly wild, but it was certainly rich with opportunities to be so, if I had wanted to indulge. And I turned away from them in the end because what was on offer was both frustrating and deeply disillusioning. Believe me, there's nothing out there for the sexual romantic.

Posted by: alias clio on July 4, 2007 4:52 PM

Continuing after *alias clio; some random thoughts on the topic:
-all sexual poetry evaporates from any woman's heart during first abortion procedure. Especially if it's done without anaesthetic.
-from badly remembered school psychology lessons: promiscuity in girls means lack of self-confidence. True. If you noticed that the only thing that'll make you interesting for the other gender is easy sex (preferably combined with physical attractiveness), and you're been constantly told by your boyfriends how stupid you are, got nothing to contribute to "manly" conversations, have not a single worthy thought in your pretty head - you start believeing it. Women are social creatures and eager to please. Applies not only to H.S.
-among "wild sex life" women only a relatively small minority are really what I will give a term "merry sluts" (the type MB finds so attractive). The rest are faking it. See D.Parker's "Big Blonde". I have known one such woman many years ago; I hope she ended an alcoholic, living in an unconcsious haze - that would be merciful. There was a time I wished her the most painful slow tortures on Earth; now I think she didn't need an outside help with those. Let her RIP.
-isn't it a self-serving hipocricy, to expect absence of "quatations upon quatations", irony and knowing attitude from the exploited while continuing exploing them? If you want them to pretend NOT to be bitter, after all the betrayals, cynicism and insults they've received in response to their innocence and sincerety, you have to pay more, buddy. You have no right to complain.

Posted by: Tatyana on July 5, 2007 9:22 AM

Clio - I'm not sure we disagree at all. Bitterness and hardness can result both from overuse and underuse (as well as, god knows, many other equations). I may be a bit warier than you are, though, of applying the guidelines that generally hold true for normal life to bohemia and bohemians, though. Life in the demimonde has its own unanchored dreamlike/nightmarish quality, and exceptions to general rules abound. Which is why it's odd that so many of the attitudes that used to be considered edgy or bohemian have been adopted by middle-class people. (It isn't hard to explain, though: it's a result of prosperity and post-'60sism.) They're values that can serve a dream-life fairly well, but they aren't values that tend to serve normal middle-class family-and-job life terribly well at all. Something has flipped -- the middleclasses are now living an unanchored makebelieve inverted dreamlife while the bigcity bohemian set has morphed into a bunch of careerizing dried-up scolds.

Tat -- Abortion without anaeshthetic? Yeeowch. That could sour someone on sex -- and probably much else -- entirely, I'd think. But I'm not sure why you seem to think the Suicide Girls set is exploited. The girls are nuts or not-nuts, sweet or not-sweet, on a case-by-case basis. And the people behind SG have their own agendas, of course. But the girls are certainly adults making their own choices -- they weren't dragged into this by white slavers, god knows. I assume a fair number of the Girls will turn into wives and mamas, some offbeat and some not, and will look back on their youthful adventures with a few giggles. As for the rest ... There'll probably be flameouts, crackups, resourceful imps and sweetiepies.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on July 5, 2007 11:03 AM

I understand, MB, it's much more comforting for you (and many men, by no means I'm singling you out) to think sluttiness in youth will give women "giggles" when they are moms and wives. You're just projecting male psychological composition onto women, I'm afraid.
A slut, if she ever becomesa mom, will try to hide her past, more often than not. Exceptions allowed, of course.

Why I think these girls (SG) are exploited? I thought I had explained. As every human being, they need confirmation of their value; it doesn't matter that they are adults - you're not 20 and you too need confirmation of your value, otherwise why would you turn on the comments on this blog?
It just depends on how one defines his/hers own value.
If you'd really believe in romanticism in sexual relations, you wouldn't write (and value) porn, Michael. You wouldn't scan sites that collect photos of "camel hoof" (sorry if I remember the term wrongly; it disgusts me), or praise SG, or "lament" teenagers revealing fashions while tripping over every thong-over-jeans sight.

There is no need to physically drag those girls into exhibitionism (and worse); praise is much more effective and pleasant; give them a carrot for "continuing burlesque tradition" - and they are eager to please. Oh, and don't forget to call those that serve your low instincts "sweeiepies", and those who don't sleep around - "bitter". Right, who wants to be bitter? Naturally, we'd rather be sweetie pies!

Posted by: Tat on July 5, 2007 11:40 AM

Tat -- So many points we can disagree about!

1) I don't approve or disapprove of porn, or Suicide Girls, or camel hoofs (a far better term than "cameltoe") ... There they are, I take note of 'em, I'm curious about them, it all means a little something so far as the general evolution of Culture In Our Time goes ... Why not take snapshots, be generally amused, try to make a little sense of it, be honest about our reactions, and move on the next thing?

2) Not that it matters, but The Wife and I don't think of what we do as making porn, not that we have anything against people who do make porn. We think of ourselves as doing raunchy pulp fiction with some pretentions. We are as pipsqueaks by comparison to the greats, of course, but we align ourselves with Terry Southern ... Jim Thompson crossed with Henry Miller ... We both like narrative, humor, ideas, sex, suspense, movies, and character. So we throw all that into the pot and stir.

3) I think "slutty" is a fun and pungent word. But "sexually adventurous" is another often-valid way of looking at the behavior, isn't it? I don't think most women have a big appetite for sexual adventurousness, except maybe in fantasy. But experience suggests -- and this isn't just my various projections imposing anything -- that there are certainly exceptions to this general rule. Have you ever hung out among actresses or rock performers or artists' models or punk rockers, for instance? The combo of "sweet" and "sexually adventurous" isn't unusual in those worlds. I wouldn't endorse actress-ethics as a general guide to life for most women, but it seems to work for actresses.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on July 5, 2007 12:30 PM

I think it will be better if I pass the 1) and 2) with "no comment". Really, it will.

3)Of course, it is fun word for you - why wouldn't it be? You're the one having fun!

Michael, do you really see no connection between what i said about "eager to please", exhibitionism and kind of lifestyle/conversation you noticed in your burlesque friends?
I've lived thru many summers, MB, in various places, had a chance to know many people. Including the type you're so fond of. Not rockers, thank god. More like DJ-centered crowd, in my 1st college-time, amateur-theater crowd (through my then lover), medical-students crowd (thru same lover), "golden-youth/heirs-of Party-nomenclature" kinda crowd (in my couple of years in Moscow; long story), so on. Why, even recently I have been reading journals of some women fitting your description. I think I talked here about one, who proclaimed herself "a sexual guru of Russian blogosphere", after getting thousands comments in the thread on anal sex' post.

That's how I made my conclusions above. On empirical knowledge.

Posted by: Tat on July 5, 2007 12:56 PM

Tat - The story of your own adventures begins to emerge!

Apologies, I feel like I'm not understanding your point and am probably missing it when I respond. Are you maintaining that sexual adventurousness never works out well, for any women? If so, I have to disagree, and not just because it suits me but because of what I've encountered in life. And god knows that I've also known women who have stuck to the straight and narrow who wound up mean and unhappy.

I don't think "sexual liberation" is a good general guideline for life, let alone anything to advocate to a class of graduating high school seniors. But, between us adults, sex can be great and even poetic; art that conveys this fact can be wonderful; sexual adventures can be memorable, amusing, and moving; and some people are better-suited to an adventurous downtownish life than others are.

But maybe we've had markedly different experiences? Or maybe you're making some other argument than the one I'm responding to?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on July 5, 2007 1:23 PM

"My own" sexual adventures? Emerge?
But according to your theory, being the textbook mean unhappy woman, I never had any!
Yes, I'm sure our experiences are markedly different. Don't know what else I can say.

Posted by: Tatyana on July 5, 2007 2:15 PM

Hmm, I think we *are* talking at cross purposes. In any case, I never called you (or thought of you as) mean 'n' unhappy, let alone straight and narrow. Anything but.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on July 5, 2007 2:47 PM

Really? I think anyone who reads this blog regularly thinks of Tat as routinely mean and unhappy!! And I think that has very little to do with any sexual adventures she has or has not enjoyed.

Posted by: unknownlady on July 5, 2007 3:41 PM

Ladies are always talking about the way their experience with sex (and men) has left them bitter. Well, I've got news for you, ladies: you don't have to be bitter; you have a choice: you can remember all the hurtful things that were done to you and chew on that for the rest of your lives, or...or you can be grateful, that's right, grateful, for the experience, the experience of having lived! with all the hurt that comes along with it. For that's what sex - which made you feel alive, now admit it, it made you feel alive - costs: the hurt that comes along with it.

Posted by: ricpic on July 5, 2007 3:51 PM

unknownlady -- Please, no personal slams. Besides, I can guarantee you that Tatyana is one very passionate person.

Ricpic -- Damn right!

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on July 5, 2007 4:12 PM

*rick, don't flatter yourself, it's not a bon ton (sp?) Wait for your ladyfriend to spoil you, at the end of your labors.

Re: women always talking about their bitter experiences. True, true -but how entertainingly some of us do! Let me sketchily translate a piece of my today's loot (really, you all should learn Russian and read LiveJournal!) Apologies for potty-mouth vocabulary, they are not mine. (don't know if the spam-filters bite for 4-letter words, so I'll asterisk)

- it's hard to f*ck Complex Personalities: they're usually overwhelmed with problems, can get it up only occasionally and not at the right target
- it's hard to f*ck infantiles of any age: their reactions are inadequate and they require constant admiration, which is tiring in big doses.
- it's terribly hard to f*ck mommy's boys, don't even try. Self-evident.
- it's hard to f*ck PhDs and other intellectuals: all the time normal people spent on studying science of f*cking they wasted in libraries and now have no idea how and where to insert things
- the hardest f*ck of all, my karmic nemesis - muddy dostoevskian analytic. Instead of healthy f*cking, you'll assume roles of Nastasia Fillipovna, count Myshkin and Rogozhin, and will exchange these roles indefinitely. You'll end up f*cked up, but not in a way intended.
Conclusion: it's incredibly hard to f*ck.
But necessary.
Even more difficult is to love. But also necessary.
Life is difficult!

Posted by: Tatyana on July 5, 2007 5:22 PM

Oh, my.
First - "my adventures emerge", then I'm a "passionate person". That was a masterly kiss of death, Michael.

*unknown..somebody (certainly not a lady): Yes, I'm mean. Very mean. But happy - happy to kick cowardly anonimous trolls in their most sensitive parts. Go shake in the dark corner.

Posted by: Tatyana on July 5, 2007 5:47 PM

Tat -- You really gotta learn how to take a compliment, girl.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on July 5, 2007 6:36 PM

I learned it 30 years ago, boy.

Posted by: Tatyana on July 5, 2007 7:08 PM

I'm a little confused. What "Tat" (and BTW---just using your first name doesn't make you not "anonymous") said doesn't constitute a "personal slam"? Perhaps "Tat" knows a great deal about "ladylike" or even "passionate" behavior in real life. I simply observe she offers no evidence of that in her behavior on this blog. Unless I guess a snotty tone toward anyone who doesn't see the world her way and repeated threats of physical violence constitute "passion"?

Posted by: unknownlady on July 6, 2007 9:42 AM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?