[lit-ideas] Re: A Question REALLY Answered

  • From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:10:13 -0500

> [Original Message]
> From: Paul Stone <pas@xxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 12/22/2005 10:43:52 AM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] A Question REALLY Answered
>
>
> >IA: This is what I was getting at when I asked if men really liked that 
> >stuff or if they think they have to like it.  If Quayle (if, repeat: if) 
> >Quayle (or any guy) can only get excited by pictures or fantasies of
what 
> >would be under his Christmas tree, well then you draw the 
> >conclusion.  It's strange how humans have these big brains that are all 
> >but useless for reality but in overdrive for fantasy and what if.  Makes 
> >me want to revisit Anton Chekov.
>
> I think it's precisely BECAUSE of our 'big brains' that we need something 
> left to the imagination. The reason that Maxim has taken over from
Playboy 
> and Penthouse is because they DON'T "show it all". Apart from the fact
that 
> they can then capture the pubescent male population [legally], they can 
> also APPEAL to the lechery that's swimming below the surface of even the 
> most Brainy of men.
>
> They LEAVE something for guys to salivate over and make up their own 
> finishing picture. The ever-present "hands over breast shot" in Maxim
lets 
> men IMAGINE their favourite type of 'tit'. The provocative 
> thumb-in-the-underwear (as if she's pulling them down) pose lets the guys 
> IMAGINE what is underneath. At the same time, the star/model/skank gets
to 
> remove herself from being associated as a full-on skank, because she
"left 
> something to his imagination".
>
>   The world is so stripped down [pun intended] anymore that something
that 
> let's both sides (reps and dems) play the game -- the libs get to get
some 
> skin, the reps are still staring at a 'clothed' woman.
>
> It's possible that women may not need men, but Men SURE AS HELL need
woman, 
> for at least ONE thing anyway. It's funny that that one thing is the
exact 
> same thing that women [increasingly] don't need us for. Porn/Erotica/Skin 
> Mags are men's answer to women's lack of sexual desire (in proportion and 
> definitely, when present, not explicitly stated -- by women), the sybian, 
> vibrators, lesbian-chic etc.
>
> The bottom line is that men, through NO FAULT of marketing ARE [even if 
> subconsciously so] obsessed by getting off. The marketing has catered to 
> this, NOT vice-versa. Women, even those who think they can assume the 
> identity of men, will never understand our lot in 


First, thanks to Andreas for the statistic.  It's about what I thought. 
All the beer guzzling pickup truck driving 14 year olds in grown up bodies
are most likely their best customers.  I'd be interested to know how many
women secretly use that site too.  There's got to a reason why Cosmo,
Glamour and the others do the covers they do.  I doubt Maxim has those
numbers.  I wonder if that's not why Maxim toned it down too.  The
advertising would probably give it away.  

For Paul, my point is that fantasy is a problem only if there's no reality
to countersink it.  Even then, sex is so subjective and so, what's the
word, problematic, because it involves what so few people are capable of,
which is emotional stripping.  Given all that, who's to say what's right
and wrong?  I think an good argument might be made that fantasy is the
perfect place for sex, even fantasy in isolation like with the sex dolls,
until fantasy begins to do real damage, as in these female idiots thinking
that if they stay cute little bunnies forever all will be right with the
world.  That's where sex turns into politics and stops being sex.  That's
where I think Maureen is right.  It also hurts the men because now they
will have to singlehandedly support all those big houses on one salary.  If
that's not stress, what is?  Maybe it will mean a return to the more
reasonable houses and lifestyles of the 50's.  Or maybe it will just mean
more debt and more stress for the men.  Uneasy rests the head that wears
the crown.

Regarding the review of Maureen Dowd, I haven't read it yet except to
gather that it's negative.  One can't please all the people all the time
and the smart ones don't try to.  She's acerbic, yes, but if she weren't,
she'd be out of a job.  It's what they pay her for, to be controversial,
bring in readers.  What about Creepy Crawly Safire?  What do you think of
him?

Regarding Dan Quayle's wife, I don't know what she looks like, but looks
are only part of the story.  Looks, in my opinion, are like wallpaper. 
After a while, you don't even see them.

Regarding your last sentence about assuming the identity of men, there's no
way I can take it back.  I'm just wondering, was it that horrible knowing
Andy?  Would it have been better if Andy never existed?  




------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: