What is this? Porno Day?

As for those last two posts:
One is a piece I wrote for a zine back in 1995 and the other is something I wrote yesterday. I made a few changes to the older one- mostly grammar related, and nothing that changes the major points, even though some of them seem a bit naive to me today.

It's sort of strange, looking back, to see how much has changed. The last time I watched television, the sitcom we were watching was just packed to the gills with dirty jokes. It's strange to think that it wasn't so long ago that the radio wouldn't play George Michael's song I Want Your Sex. Now, there seems to be an overabundance of sex in all media. How can these fictional characters be so horny all the time?

Yet, it's dumbed-down sex. It's sex as a hobby or another shopping item. There are dozens of sex-blogs, for example. But, have you ever read any? Sure, there are some brilliantly clever ones like panties3, but a lot of them are intensely boring. Listening to people describe their sexual exploits at length is like asking somebody what they bought at the grocery store and having them pull out a two-foot long receipt and say: "Okay, well first I bought..."

Ultimately, I think sex should be dangerous and chaotic and mysterious. There's a frission that gets lost when it becomes yet another yuppie lifestyle item. Perhaps, this is why Sex and the City was never actually sexy. This is a time when "sophisticated people" see sexual preferences as being as important as what toothpaste one uses, and there's something so utterly banal about that. Sex should be spiritually shattering, or conversely spiritually transcendant; but never banal and insignificant. Oddly enough, Andrea Dworkin had more respect for sex than most "sex-positive" types because she saw it as being inherently powerful. The Dworkinites may have been extremists, but at least they didn't treat sex and art as meaningless.