Bigsley the Oaf

Meditation on Female Sexual Energy

Posted in Uncategorized by bigsleytheoaf on October 10, 2011

Why are men so obsessed with women –
Women as substance, which is to say – the substance of woman –
And women are obsessed with men as structural element – the inter-relation of men with reality?

I was just watching this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO1OV5B_JDw

The woman in that video is so strikingly attractive. But she’s not attractive in any way that any other woman has been, for me. It’s wholly new. The stunning thing about the substance of women, from my perspective, is the novelty. Anything else varies less. I eat a tomato here or a tomato in italy – it’s going to be mostly similar. I meet a man here or a man in Japan – they’re going to be basically the same. But women are crazy! They’re so different, everywhere. Every new beauty feels like entering a whole new world of beauty.

Perhaps the character of femininity is then the modulation of the essential explosion of diversity intrinsic to the human species. Perhaps men who womanize too much literally get their minds blown and become kinda zombie-zomb. Perhaps men are the selectors of the “right” diversity. Maybe every woman is a world, and men are spaceships. Marriage or relationship or fuck or whatever is to land.

But, so, the real crux of the question of femininity, then – that is, assuming this ridiculous, untenable framework – is how the hell does it expand so beautifully? Or rather, where does the diversity of female beauty come from? Does it all exist, and we’re seeing just articulation/combination thereof? Or is new female sexuality created?

How is the species mutating, huh? HUH!?!

Advertisements

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Graham said, on October 11, 2011 at 5:40 pm

    Meditation on Desire

    Why are people so obsessed with desire?
    Desire as substance, which is to say, the substance of desire —
    And people are obsessed with desire as a structural element — the inter-relation of desire with reality?

    But, so, the real crux of the question of desire, then – that is, assuming this ridiculous, untenable framework – is how the hell does it expand so beautifully? Or rather, where does the diversity of objects of desire come from? Does it all exist, and we’re seeing just articulation/combination thereof? Or is new desire created?

  2. blim micky said, on February 10, 2013 at 11:43 pm

    http://tinyurl.com/sirening
    this links to an interview with Buckminster Fuller. he first notes that everything they’ve discussed so far has summarized the ideas it’s taken him 22 books to express; so the questioner asks what has he not written of before?
    he proceeds to lay out a pattern in his experience with women (and in his case, his wife & infidelity) and discovery.

    * * *

    soon after he spits out something along the lines of your planet, spaceship analogy.. he links women to continuous:tensile forces of gravity in galaxies, men to discontinuous:compressive islands of planets.

    at first he seems a little sloppy here (perhaps because he’s thinking-out-loud) saying these galaxies are themselves islanded. but I think this gives weigh to the nested/tangled natures of continuity/discontinuity, femininity/masculinity. to mix lenses with your model, the planet may be an island, a discontinuous ball of compressed elements in space’s context, but as a vessel, its interior supports a continuous biosphere, a whole world comprised of swirling elements, new flora and fauna.

    the spaceship is a vessel too but usually an inhabitable technologic object; built to move between planets, star systems, sensitive to the danger and accelerative draw to gravity wells, each with their own unique adaptions to periodic regenesis. the constructed ship is discontinuous as much as it is discrete point moving across continuum, sometimes a l one l y place, between more vivid experiences of continuity that we fall into, but at the same time seem to have arose to meet us. and these sorts of continuous strings of affairs are common enough to occur over discontinuous individuals in a continuity over rec history.

    I’m fiddling at this point but I have trouble telling which tongue is which in the french kiss between gender-behavior construction and biological-evolutionary bases.. to each-their-own strange cosmology of nested layers of continuous/discontinuous natures, or in time, may one find a cobbling of traditionally masculine and feminine habits picked up from family/cultural/invented sources that gets either them or the universe off.

    anyone without a face (the perceptual field of a first person view) can play follow the odd-I-see. should one be concerned with the use in muse? the contract’s fine print is mystery itself. is this all some crude reduction of some flowing fluxing field of activity/passivity in exploration of the fields extro/intro one another, the construction a worlds together?

    & what of one enthralled by a siren themselves being a siren for another? love geometry sexual tension relation ship outer space cognitive processes evolution pencil they all want your love and attention, for your voice to whisper them sweet nothings, be it poetry, equations, or a potential form as an expression of potential forms.

  3. blim micky said, on February 10, 2013 at 11:59 pm

    *construction OF worlds together? may be what the term ‘concrescence’ aims to describe.
    *whisper sweet nothings OF, TO, THRU them;


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: