warning: not suitable for children, or other people who don't want to read about butt-sex (discussed with academic detachment, of course).

So there is this gallery showing with art about women with AIDS and also information about AIDS in general, and so there was a presentation going on in the big auditorium that anyone could go to... and there were a bunch of journal papers on the table for people to read... and there was a huge banquet table of food. Some people were eating it, you could eat it whenever you wanted during the gallery thing, that went on for two days... so there were these brownie-bar things... they had graham-cracker crust and layers of fudge and then coconut on the top and they were sprinkled with graham-cracker-crust dust and brown sugar and they were just lying there... and nobody was eating them... and there were not enough people in the auditorium to eat them all, really, and... well... so.... I read two of the scientific papers on the table... one was about how much lube you need if you're having butt-sex... no, seriously, this was like a peer-reviewed journal article about the amount and the viscosity... I stopped reading that one... and then the other one was about how if you're married or in a long-term relationship or engaging in transactional sex (all in the same catagory) then basically you're just exchanging sex for money, security, a house, bodily safety, etc- so if you're a woman involved in any kind of relationship at all, it is a given that you're going to have to have sex (and this sex pretty much makes you a socially-acceptable form of prostitute, because you wouldn't have it if you didn't need to gain something from it) and since you don't really have control over whether you remain abstinent or not, or whether your partner remains monogamous, or whether he uses a condom or not... you have absolutely no control over whether or not you get AIDS. Hmm....

They have recently been arguing over this very idea on the Scripps College facebook pages, saying that because of the "power structure" that the only reason women give men sex is because that's the only thing they have that men want which will in return get them money, a house, support for their children, etc. So Scripps held a clinic for women to learn how to "pleasure themselves"... because even though sex itself is "beautiful and freeing and wonderful"... sex with MEN... or shall we say, GIVING up sex TO men, is evil, degrading, misogynistic, and should be stopped. So this way you can still enjoy sex (or aspects of it) while still "completely freeing yourself from the hetero-male-normative-insert-any-popular-phrasology-here-regime-of-gender-repression" as well.

Reminds me of this science-fiction book where the world was run by convents of women in different industries who just cloned themselves instead of having sex with men (in general they scorned, mistreated and looked down on men and didn't let them participate except peripherally in any activity of the civilization). The catch was that they still needed men to somehow "spark" the whole cloning process... so in return for "sparking", the women would occasionally have natural children with men that they liked so that there would be boys to replace the men in the next generation. The only problem was when a woman gave birth to a natural daughter. Nobody wanted the daughters because they weren't part of any clone-group and they weren't men. The story begins with a set of natural-born identical twin daughters. You can see where this is going. Oh, and did I mention that the men were all sailors? Yeah. You know you want to read it now.

But in all seriousness, the kind of stuff that the paper and the Scripps facebook group is talking about certainly must be true for some people, especially in some other cultures. Those women would probably benefit from a UNICEF shipment of cans of empowerment sauce and a copy of Destiny's Child Independent Woman Part I. But at Scripps College I don't see a lot of women being culturally pressured into trading sex for material goods. Ok, let me add: "against their will". I guess I was just raised by parents who said that you don't always have to do what your culture from time to time sort of implies you might want to look into. Or more likely, I'm TRaPPED inside the structure of male-oppression present on small Southern California liberal arts college campuses so completely that I can't even see it for what it is anymore!!! It's hard to see how this is possible, since according to students of the same institution who think if I am having sex then I am oppressed, if I'm not having sex then I'm "repressed". What should I do??? All of my actions are based on cues from my peers and I'm getting mixed cues!?! WHAt ShouLD I DO?????

But really the whole time I was reading this I was thinking, "If I learn enough from these papers about AIDS so that I can tell myself that I "attended" this free and open-to-the-public event, I can eat one of those brownie bars.

And WOW, it was delicious.

I wonder if we can post pictures in comments... If you see code (or see nothing at all) below this point, then we can't:





And in case that didn't work: here's a link.
» ranor on 2007-05-05 04:24:08

Sweet, it did work.
Although I kinda fucked up your nice little black box. (Not innuendo. Really.)
» ranor on 2007-05-05 04:26:44

ahaha.
that made me laugh really hard. especially the end about the brownies.
» bananaface on 2007-05-05 06:11:06

Great ending.
Obviously, the people who WAY over-think marriage or couples having sex have never heard of love. Not even sex from love, but maybe fatherly love...husbandly love...gosh.
» middaymoon on 2007-05-06 02:58:48

Name.

URL.

[to enter your email, use "mailto:youremail@domain.com"]
Subject.

Comment.

Word verification.

Copy the first 4 characters only.

If you are a member, try logging in again or accessing this page here.