Harper Valley PTA Report

[Mittelwerk at aol.com]

hmmm, more neo-nimbyism from the taste crusaders; also, a little projection
there from dyb0001:  look, sugar, i went to sarah lawrence; they didn't have
a very good computer science dept., so obviously i do not have the technical
ability to silence people over the net. . .. . 

do you mean to say that our culture really objectifies women?  zounds, lemme
paste that.

first off, objectification is total (it doesn't exist for the benefit of your
thesis statement, alone); no man enjoys the sight of spread-shots for their
putative content, but instead, sees in them the pleasing reflection of his
own objectification--the recognition that he is not alone in being unhappy,
that fulfillment is denied all (especially those who could make him happy and
give him fulfillment:  women).  This is why it is destructive.  You can get a
reverberation of this actual violence from the way you, dyb0001, turn women
(and I've known strippers: some are fucked up, some aren't) into conceptual
Lego for an authoritarian 'female' argument.  

when this argument moves into aesthetics (and i've noticed the familiar High
Art/low culture schism peeking out of the lagoon) it immediately starts to
wonder where that damn baby went, while gazing complacently at a
freshly-scoured tub.  (I assume it then lays the Brillo-pad to rest in the
cradle.)  the reason something like Hustler is Huster (that is to say,
something which qualifies for the --obsolete, in my mind--term,
'pornography'), is that it mistakes the act of transgression itself for goal
of transgression; it wants to say that the sexual body is not dirty, hence it
(cynically) defiles it.  only a fool could look at this and not see a
(granted, dysfuctional) aesthetic motive; it fails simply because the stress
is on profanation--not on the retrieval of the sacred through the profanation
of 'sacred' symbols.  an analogy is the works of de Sade:  they are 'taboo'
not because of the graphic descriptions of sadistic dismemberment--but
because they reveal how easily sadism can be made to conform to normative
ethical behavior.

which brings us to GR:  these is no GR without ugliness; in fact the book at
times seems like a comprehensive glossary of the profane--in both its high
and low manifestations (the intellectual bearings of domination all the way
down to a shit-fetish--hey look:  bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, i'm a man, i
made twenty-one).  what distinguishes it is the way it, to paraphrase Adorno,
keeps pace with the justness of its images through the faithful pursuit of
their negation.  everybody gets their due, their humanity.  in fact, larry
flynt is in the book:  he's Major Marvy.  notice how P goes out of his way to
tell you that, despite what sex has become for Marvy(imperialism) , he still
enjoys it as you or I do . . . .