The War for Evermore

Pretty Smile

“When your brains are gone, what nobler substitute could there be than wine?” ~Supervert, ‘The Necrophilia Variations’

Stop.

Do not scroll down.

Do not read past the picture of the sweet lass, below. I have a link you should watch. Before you do, there’s probably a couple of things I should say. There are some things going on in this video, including the reading of an excerpt from the Necrophilia Diaries, read by the beautiful woman with the delightful smile you see below. I should note the reading is pretty adult in a NSFW/NSFF sort of way.

I should also say this picture is part of the story of how that smile came about.

Now, having said this much, I think I can assume what some of you might be thinking regarding where that happy expression came from, and what this means in terms of what you are about to see.

No. Sorry to disappoint, but I can can assure you there is no real suggestion – let alone presentation – of nudity, sex acts, or much of anything of an overtly visual nature.

Nothing. Except for that smile. And to quote the young lady making that smile: “Wow.”

Just wow.

Now, go watch, right here, watch the progression all the way through, no skipping, nothing, just listen to her, watch her … and then we’ll take a smoke break, calm down a little and talk about stuff, as Stu is fond of saying.


===

“Why do you watch me so intently?” she asks.

Feeling pretentious, he replies:

“To see you.”

Questioning expression.

“When it happens, when you let go. I see you, a part of you you don’t share with anyone else. There are no inhibitions, there is no restraint … well, no inner restraint. You allow yourself out. A very private part of yourself.”

“Really? You judge your experience with women by the intensity of their orgasms?”

“Um … not judge. More like enjoy.”

“What if I told you that you were full of shit.”

“I wouldn’t necessarily argue.”

“Good.” Pause. “At least you didn’t say you were looking into my soul.”

“I was thinking about it.”

She snorts.

“There’s an upside to this, though, if you give the idea some thought.”

“And that is…?”

“Obviously, if you have a lover with this sort of voyueristic fetish, wouldn’t it follow that your lover would wish to better learn how to help make things happen for you, and that he or she might thus be well-practiced in the art of getting you off?”

“You are really having this conversation with me? Really?”

Shrug.

“Dunno. But it’s an interesting thought, don’t you think? If you want to get someplace, it follows you have to figure out how to get there.”

“But what is the ‘there’ you are getting to?”

“The visual thing?”

“Yeah.”

“Hell, I don’t know. Maybe its peeling back the layers to get at the uninhibited joy that lurks beneath. Maybe that thing that scares men about women, the idea they can reach a place men can’t.” He grins. “Maybe this is what ancients were referencing when they talked about the ‘Goddess’ in women. I think I can see that. In you, for example.”

She looks horrified.

“Do not start describing…”

“Self-conscious, too,” he offers, and gets a punch in the shoulder and a dirty look for his trouble.

===

Back to our story …

Clayton Cubitt is playing with female things.

He says he’s making art.

Okay. I can buy that.

The art he is making is short films.

Of Orgasms.

Orgasms as art, as one interview characterized what Cubitt is about.

The concept is simple: a young woman sits at a table with a book she has selected to read from and proceeds to do so.

What happens next is filmed, all in one take.

The tension of each piece is the element of resistance. The reader is instructed to ignore what is happening to her as long as possible until, as they say in all the best Star Trek episodes, resistance is futile.

Shot cleanly in black and white, the womens’ skin and the flat table stand out in stark contrast against a black background, ensuring focus on the reader, and the expressions on her face.

And those expressions are the real art here.

Stoya

Beautiful. Open. Unambiguous, hiding nothing, sharing everything.

There are five videos released so far, with five different readers. In each one, the young woman is brought to orgasm, slowly, inextricably, by what we assume – and are told –  is hidden manipulation.

All the while they read on, resisting giving in to sensation.

In each of the videos, the women succumb.

I use the term ‘succumb’ intentionally.

It doesn’t hurt that the first video features the beautiful Stoya, perhaps one of the most beautiful actresses in porn. Stoya is fresh-faced, her light skin flawless in the black and white medium. As one person remarked to me, she looks like that prototypical girl next door.

In the Stoya reading, something else about her stands out – there is no sense of anything unusual conveyed, not subtle hesitations, signs of discomfort, self-consciousness. She is, as we might say in the acting profession, in the moment. Except she’s not acting. She’s reading. She will read until she can’t read.

So you – the viewer/ voyeur – know the setup. You know what is supposed to happen. So you wait.

It really is about the expression, I think. What happens to the face – in this case, a woman’s face during that special moment when nothing in the world matters except that moment.

Speaking of moments, there is always the question whether this is a ‘When Harry Met Sally’ moment.

Personally, I kind of think Cubitt’s films underscore why that scene was both true, and pure bullshit – ’cause either Stoya is one of the best damn actresses you’ve ever seen, easily kicking Ms. Ryan’s ass in the fake orgasm department  – or this is about as true a moment caught on film as you could ask for.

I think the real truth of  what WHMS told us is a lot of men are stupid when it comes to women. How stereotyped that perception is will have to be your call. Beyond that, the scene was bullshit, at least in the sense that if you are talking about real lovemaking, the kind that goes on for a long time, (as opposed to the two minute slam-bam-thank you ma’am stereotype comedians have done to death) there’s a certain point where the thought of things being faked do not follow (i.e.: Time + Making Love = Truth).

But, hey, what do I know? I’m a guy.

What I do know is I don’t invest a lot of time in things I do not like.

I doubt women do, either.

And that the converse holds true.

But I digress …

===

For more:

Stoya’s thoughts on the session are here.

More Hysterical Literature here.

November 18, 2012 Posted by | Hodgepodge, Tastes, Telling Stories | , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Scheme of Things …

“It is a natural human impulse to think of evolution as a long chain of improvements; of a never-ending advance towards largeness and complexity – in a word, towards us.

“We flatter ourselves.” ~Bill Bryson

=====

Stephen Jay Gould and friend …

I was listening to the audio edition of Bill Bryson’s “A Short History of Nearly Everything” wherein the author discusses how one of the more common occurrences in the history of  life is that of species extinction. Very few species last a very long time. If fact, he points out, it is shown that the more complex a species, the quicker they go extinct.  That, in turn, got me thinking of something related.

Sometime back I was listening to Terry Gross’ “Fresh Air” on NPR. They were replaying an interview with evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, who had recently passed after a long struggle with cancer. During that interview, Gould discussed varying aspects of the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, which he developed with Niles Eldredge (as well as talking a little about his love of baseball, as I recall – he was quite the knowledgeable fan, and his books of essays are peppered with thoughtful observations of the game).

During the interview he got around to talking about where homo sapiens fits into the grand scheme of Evolution. Essentially, one of the interesting conceits of science in regard to Evolution in general, and Darwin’s proposals for its functioning in particular, is the perception that Man represents some sort of pinnacle of evolutionary development. (One can’t help note the parallel with the religious concept/projection of man being “created” in God’s image, a rather anthropomorphic element of the psychology of religion.) The idea of Gradualism, Gould felt, completely misrepresented what Darwin had observed. (For gradualism, think of those progressive illustrations that portray the evolution of man from a slouching, shambling creature to the upright, handsome devil he thinks he has become, and you see the idea in its most simplistic presentation.)

Gould offered that evolution was a development of fits and starts, a reaction to sudden changes in the biological status quo. (In keeping with Darwin’s observation’s of the variety of evolutionary changes witnessed on the Galapogos in the same species.) He pointed out that the most powerful evolutionary stories were not those of the singular complex flora or fauna that we mistakenly perceive as the height of evolutionary development of a species, but instead tales of diverse creatures like bats and rodents that blossomed into multiple evolutionary variations on the original theme. He felt that the most successful species were the ones that continued to adapt and diversify, not rarify into a few or even one branch of flora or fuana, like man and his simian cousins.

He suggested that homo sapiens and his cousins are not pinnacles of evolutionary development but, at best, twigs on the tree of life – not just man, but primates in general. Happy accidents (for us) of evolutionary change, that for all intents and purposes are in a perilous position from an evolutionarily perspective, particularly when compared to “lesser” animals like beetles and rats and even cockroaches in all their diversity.

Rather humbling, that…

=====

Postscript

Bacteria ‘R’ Us, by Valerie Brown

Killer summation:

… it is clear that bacteria are not what the general run of humans thought they were, and neither are humans. Bacteria are the sine qua non for life, and the architects of the complexity humans claim for a throne. The grand story of human exceptionalism — the idea that humans are separate from and superior to everything else in the biosphere — has taken a terminal blow from the new knowledge about bacteria. Whether humanity decides to sanctify them in some way or merely admire them and learn what they’re really doing, there’s no going back. And if there’s any hope of rebalancing the chemistry of a biosphere deranged in two short centuries by humans, it very likely lies in peaceful coexistence with the seemingly brilliant, deceptively simple life-forms comprising the domain Bacteria.

November 7, 2012 Posted by | Hodgepodge | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

   

%d bloggers like this: