"wholesome" sex

[Paul Mackin]

Didn't mean for my dichotomy to describe anything except positive
and negative adjectives as applied to sex.

What Andrew describes is decidedly "healthy". My point is, would
it have any literary interest.

				P.


----------
From: 	Andrew Dinn
Sent: 	Monday, November 25, 1996 11:50 AM
To: 	Paul Mackin
Cc: 	pynchon-l at waste.org
Subject: 	Re: "wholesome" sex

Paul Mackin writes:

> Anybody notice in our posts, and wonder at, how when sex is
> described positively it seems natural to surround the adjectives
> with quotes--"wholesome", "healthy"?

> The quotes can more easily be omitted when the sense is negative:
> 	perverse
> 	exploitative
> 	kinky
> 	sterile

> Can this possibly mean that "healthy" or "normal" or "wholesome" sex
> is something pretty unlikely to come from a writer we will want to read?

I am not sure your dichotomy identifies anything. I would not call a
once a weekend, missionary 2 minute squelch ((c) J Lydon 1976)
"healthy" whereas I would consider regular, frequent and vigorous anal
intercourse perfectly "healthy" should it be carried out between
consenting, adults intent on giving and taking mutual pleasure and
careful not to inflict (much) pain or permanent damage to
tissue/muscle. Is the former not often perverse, exploitative and
sterile and is not the latter quite capable of being wholesome and
healthy (if perhaps slightly kinky).

It is not that `when sex is described positively it seems natural to
surround the adjectives with quotes--"wholesome", "healthy"?'. Rather
that one chooses these adjectives when one wishes to commend a
particular sexual act, whatever the plumbing and mechanics.


Andrew Dinn
-----------
And though Earthliness forget you,
To the stilled Earth say:  I flow.
To the rushing water speak:  I am.