Still a step behind

Hello, all,

On 2/5/98 I wrote:

"It is my impression what Foucault means in saying "We other Victorians" is
that the way in which we view human sexuality is rooted firmly in the
Victorian era, and thus despite the distance we imagine exists between
ourselves, today, with respect to how "human sexuality" is for us, and how it
was for those others then, we are close enough to merely separated by the
passing of time."

To which, also on 2/5/98, Randal wrote:

"Do you believe that?"

Situated, as "we" are (whoever, whatever, whenever "we" are, thankyou John),
within a consciousness-constituting fabric of language, we have "sexuality"
(as well as "sex", "brocolli", and all the other things we "have") in a
particular WAY. That WAY being, as an abstracted thing, ie. as an emerged
"object", suitable for "speaking of", in all the various "modern" discourses
with which we are familiar.

Now, it would be nice to think of myself as having somehow escaped modernity?s
clutches, that somehow, I never think "of" my sexuality, or the sexuality of
others, as if it was something apart from myself, as if, that is to say, I
never thought of sexuality at all. Nice in the sense of never having to worry
about it, of it not being an issue of being human - but the fact is, that
ain?t so.

Human Sexuality is not merely - if at all, any longer - a submerged aspect of
human being - of what is it to be human, simply (as it is, I imagine, of what
cow sexuality is for cows, simply) - but an emerged and problematized issue.

We (those who labor in the grip of modernity), that is to say, not merely
"think" it, in the sense of our going about our various sexual practices, we
"think about" it", so, it has finally - if slowly - occurred to me that what
would, therefore, be surprising, indeed, is not that I think this, but if I


Partial thread listing: