Lady in red

IT WAS XENOPHILIA!

Let me clear this up right now. Not only was I in the pool room at the time but, as it happens, I have extensive knowledge of Xeno’s labia (see my relevant posts on “The Negative Bitch Squad”). What I didn’t realize is that Xeno is also an execellent pool player. Let me explain.

I had just arrived at the pool room and was standing at one end of the pool table. There was a crowd of onlookers gathered around. I noted that the game was nearly finished but it would be a difficult final shot. The last of the odd balls was lying close to the far cushion and the cue ball was no more than three feet away, but directly in front. Then a lady appeared and began lining the shot up. She was wearing a short red dress and I could see, from the angle I was standing, that she was going commando.

After studying the angles she made her move. She rejected the offer of a rake to make the shot easier and boosted herself up on the table but her red dress was too tight and so she hiked it up over her hips. A gasp arose from the crowd which collected at the end of the table to get a better look (at the angle of the shot). But she still wasn’t satisfied – she needed better balance.

Slowly her right leg moved to the edge of the table and then over the side, exposing not only her magnificent labia (she is six feet tall with labia in proportion) but also a delightful glimpse of her little pink meat. Another gasp arose from the crowd which, of course, was totally male. I was wondering, of course, if she was going to make the shot.

Slowly she took aim, then stroked the cue through a perfect left-hand bridge (you can always tell good players by the elegance of the bridge) and chipped the ball smartly into the corner pocket. Another gasp arose from the crowd which had become excited by this time but I never said a word. Then cried out, “Xeno, it’s you! I recognized your labia!”

She turned around smiling and said, “Hi Montrealman. What did you think of my shot?”

“Xeno,” I replied, “you’re the best!”

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPs

: Donairious Big (Jan. 5, 9:33PM)

Thank you Donairious. Did you notice how I built up the tension, from Xeno hiking her dress over her bare hips and buttocks to reach a climax when, with legs splayed out over the pool table to reveal her magnificent labia and even a bit of her delightful pink meat, she potted the winning ball into the corner pocket? Like all good writing, there were two strong themes in progress. Do you think I might have a career writing soft porn?

: More (Jan. 7, 12:19PM)

“After all a gynecologist (sic) interests lie deeper than the outter (sic) area!”

I think you’re absolutely right More, but my interests were more aesthetic than gynecological. This is not to say that gynecology may not have an aesthetic dimension but the focus here was rather on Xeno’s magnificent labia and, of course, her skill in playing pool. But mainly her magnificent labia. I hope you will agree.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPs

: Voice of Treason (Jan/ 7, 4:19PM)

Well Voice, what you say is true but have you ever tried surviving on a “community college prof income?” I must say that I object to your reference to my writing for “sleaze mags” since I am trying to raise the philosophical bar on soft porn, i.e., provide it with a bit of reflective thought content. Sometimes I wonder whether I should abandon philosophy for full-frontal porn but then I think again. I always “think again” Voice but, as they say, it’s the curse of philosophy.

By the way, “supplements” has two “p’s.”

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

GETTING HORNY

: Xenophilia (Jan. 7, 9:11PM)

“I don’t think you ready for this jelly/ Cause my body too bootylicious for ya babe.”

Xeno, would that be Ebonics, you know black English? If so, what dat mean? (I checked out the link but it was too complex.) Anyway, I think I know what it means and, if I’m right, you seem to be conforming to my theory of females in the process of getting horny. It goes like this:

The thought pattern of males in the process of getting horny are pretty linear, i.e., relatively simple and straghtforward. The guys in the poolroom, for example, were getting horny seeing your labia and pink meat spread out on the snooker table (which your 36″ seams couldn’t cover) before their eyes, And who can blame them, Xeno? As I said, they’re magnificent. But things are a bit more complicated with the female.

My theory is that the thought patterns of females getting horny are quite different. It is the result of their realization that the guy is getting horny over them. It’s more of a reactive sort of thing rather than being direct as in the case of the male. You could say that females who are getting horny do so over the image they see of themselves in the eye of the Other, i.e., the male.

As you can see, Xeno, your quotation making reference to your “bootylicious body” appears to support my claim. You are, in effect, getting horny over the reflection of that “bootylicious body” as you see it taking shape in my (increasingly horny) mind.

I would be very interested if you could confirm my theory, Xeno.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

CONDEMNED TO BE HORNY

In his famous “Being and Nothingness” (“L’Etre et le Néant”) the famous French existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre maintained that man is “condemned to be free.” Everyone is simply “thrown into the world” without external guidance. Outside of Being there is just Nothingness, whether conceived in terms of any external morality or any metanarrative – religious or political or social – which purports to explain existence. Man must act without constraint but such action must be “authentic,” that is, performed “pour soi” (the “for-itself”) as opposed to being inauthentic, that is, one performed “en soi” (the “in itself”). For Sartre, the vast majority of people act inauthentically, in “bad faith” (“mal foi”), surrendering their Being to external goals and thereby rendering it meaningless.

For Montrealman the parallels are obvious: Instead of being condemned to be free, since the species reproduces through sexual relations, everyone is condemned to be horny. But how does one come to be horny? What is going on? There are three possble explanations.

The neurological explanation maintains that we become horny as a result of sex hormones engaging the relavant part of the brain, but this explanation is unsatisfying. In addition to failing to explain just how the interaction works (like saying that the sleeping pill induces sleep because of its soporific qualities), the explanation presents an unacceptablly materialistic determinism. We are simply the playthings of our hormones which is absurd.

Then there is the romantic explanation, usually found in the form of popular films and songs, one which sublimates horniness in the form of an unfulfilled yearning for the Other (note the capital “O”). The romantic explanation, however, while delightful in itself, is unacceptable in the sense that it lacks explanatory depth. It simply romanticizes what Sartre might call “the brute fact of horniness”. But it does contain a valuable element, that of “yearning.”

The psychological explanation of the manner in which we become horny is embodied in this yearning for the Other. This yearning involves the total union of the male and the female. The one is incomplete, both physically and psychologically, without the other. It is only through such union, in other words, that we become complete and since completion is achieved through sexual union, we are condemned to be horny.

Thank you. You may now put down your pens.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPs

: donairious Big (Jan. 9, 10:23PM)

Many thanks for the invitation, Donairious, but I must decline. Two points, one principled (subdivided into two parts) and the other empirical, factor into my decision.

(1) (a) My thinking on the nature of the LTWWB site in general places the anonymity of the bitcher, but particularly the commenters (since they are usually my principal targets), at the center. Such anonymity, at least for me, provides a major element in its appeal. This is not because I am a recluse but rather because one can directly engage the mind(s) of the commenters without the distractions of being physically present (or recalling such presence). Such distractions impede the “pure thought” of the interlocutor – even if one has only the remembered physical image of them in one’s mind – which muddies the unadulterated engagement with their thought (such as it is).

(b) This goes to the reason I am present on LTWWB in the first place. I am not here to make friends but rather to take a critical perspective on the vapourings of the Halifax Underclass. This is not because I am unfriendly but simply because such a critical perspective requires “cognitive distance” to attain the required impartiality. So, even if I lived in Halifax, I would not attend the “Summits” for those principled reasons.

(2) As far as the empirical reason goes, there is a strong possibility that I will be at Oxford University attending the annual Philosophy of Education of Great Britain Conference in March at New College which, as you probably know, is not particularly “new” since it was founded in 1382. One must keep a clear mind for these events.

I trust that you will not take offence at my decision.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!