The Pagan Goddess and her Kiss of Death

[dotinthesky]

I'm glad Camille Paglia has a presence again on the internet. When I first started Livejournal, she kept a column at Salon.com, as well as included her opinions and insights in other forums. She disappeared for six years (writing and touring a book, I think) but it looks like she's back to stay.

She was the first one to hate bloggers, even before anyone knew what was a blog. She unapologetically supported Ralph Nader, even after Bush Jr. beat Al Gore. And if you've read Sexual Personae, you know what a shit-stirrer she is, just in general. I'm not going to say that I agree 100% with everything she says (e.g. Madonna is the future of feminism), but I enjoy her thoughts, barbs and prophesies (last year, she correctly said that Madonna gave Britney "The Kiss of Death").

I finally saw Basic Instinct last night with her commentary, and it was brilliant. My thoughts on the movie can be found here. If you don't own the DVD, it's worth checking out purely for her commentary. What was once a homage to Hitchcock and Hollywood's golden era becomes, in Paglia's hands, the study of a pagan goddess wrecking the world of men.

I'm now scared of watching Basic Instinct 2 and being disappointed.

Gays have two choices. First, if they want to think of themselves as a distinct group worthy of the special protection of civil rights, they should perhaps accept the Judeo-Christian position that homosexuality is against nature (which has tyrannically designed our bodies for procreation) and then celebrate gay love as a seditious and necessary act of human freedom and imagination, in the Sade, Baudelaire, and Wilde way. The scornful term breeders, used by some urban gays about heterosexual couples with children, suggests that this strategy is still possible. Another solution is to blur homosexual and heterosexual desire and to see all of eroticism as a dynamic continuum, in constant flux from hour to hour and day to day. This would logically end in withholding legal recognition from gays as a distinct category but would argue instead for protection of all nonconformist sexual behaviour on the pagan grounds of pansexuality.

Camille Paglia, from Sex, Art, and American Culture

Comments

[kixie.livejournal.com]

First, if they want to think of themselves as a distinct group worthy of the special protection of civil rights, they should perhaps accept the Judeo-Christian position that homosexuality is against nature (which has tyrannically designed our bodies for procreation) and then celebrate gay love as a seditious and necessary act of human freedom and imagination, in the Sade, Baudelaire, and Wilde way

Ok, I'm totally lost. What the hell has the Judeo-Christian position on homosexuality have to do with civil rights, especially in a country that supports the separation of church and state?
The Judeo-Christian position on anything shouldn't be taken into account by anything at all anyways, but even so, it's like she's non sequituring or something.

Ugh, Camille Paglia annoys the shit out of me.

[commonpeople.livejournal.com]

This particular quote came from a piece she wrote on the American Presbyterians calling for equal rights for gays and lesbians. The basic jist of her piece was that the Presbyterians wanted to accept gays and lesbians, but only if they conformed to the "nice, monogamous, nuclear family" standard they held for heterosexuals.

I like the fact that she writes this kind of stuff; I like how she's trying to widen the debate and throw in a few bad apples.

[kixie.livejournal.com]

I think this is a case of "context is everything" :P

I'm not fond of Camille Paglia at all, but I do respect playing devil's advocate/widening the debate.

Isn't being a Presbyterian like being a Unitarian or something - basically, might as well be agnostic? I love how Christianity has been watered down, changed and softened through the ages...

[commonpeople.livejournal.com]

There were some Presbyterians in the building I grew up in Brasil who liked lentils. That's as far as i know about them. :-P

[kixie.livejournal.com]

I have a dim view of human nature and an intrinsic cynicism regarding Protestantism that seeped in from my Roman Catholic upbringing whcih sort of colours my view on many of the 'newer' Christian branches...

[commonpeople.livejournal.com]

I personally take the view that there must be something wrong with any Christian who doesn't like Madonna's "Like a Prayer" video.

[kixie.livejournal.com]

And a good view it is! I loved that video, and she looked HAWT as a brunette. Also, the song rocks. You should hear Glitterbug's version, I think you'd like it :)

[commonpeople.livejournal.com]

Is this them? (http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=128474086)

[kixie.livejournal.com]

Nope; they've split up, have been for a few years, but I still have some mp3s and cds of their music. They were SUCH fun.

Here they are (http://www.gbug.i12.com/).

[kixie.livejournal.com]

Most Protestant religions seem to be a better way to live, you don't have that GUILT and SHAME and shit pounded into you - much nicer, and healthier, and less discriminating and all that. As a religion it's a bit wishy washy 'cause, y'know, there's no demands! Religion has to have demands - you don't eat pork, or beef, or animals at all, or wank, or have pre-marital sex, or show anything but your pupils, stuff like that! Unreasonable ones, like foreskins! But as a way to live your life it's far better; I think I'd rather grow up with a minister who cracks funny jokes than one who tells me I'm going to hell if I eat another cookie. Given I have a dim view of religion in general (I feel the need to point out, I don't give a toss what people want to and do believe in -that's great, as long as you're nice about it and all, I just think it's sad that people are told to look to some higher force when they're more than capable of finding strength within themselves, that kind of thing), the more watery it is the better. That sounds horribly contradictory - it is - but it's like my Catholic upbringing kicks in and I go "PAH! That's not a REAL religion!" I's so conflicted. :D

Another bit, though: The scornful term breeders, used by some urban gays about heterosexual couples with children, suggests that this strategy is still possible.

What? How?

[phyrephly.livejournal.com]

Presbyterian is basically like the Scottish Anglican Church, in America meaning you're about as WASPy as the Episcopalians.

[tarotbydiana.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. I would say it's better for gays to look at themselves being within nature then "against nature". Given that other animals exhibit homosexual behavior (dolphins!), there is evidence beyond human nature that homosexuality is part of the natural world. I think being a "distinct group worthy of special protection of civil rights" is necessary at this time but may not be in another 100 years. That may seem like a long time but it takes generations for attitudes to change.

I agree with what she is saying about "eroticism as a dynamic continuum" but I don't think we are there yet and until people reach that state of consciousness definition is necessary for protection of civil rights.

I have an interesting way of handling people who ask me to define my sexuality. I just say: "I'm sexual". It's true. I also think heterosexuality is a myth really. Desire is such a fluid and complicated subject that gets tangled in definition. I think there will be a time (sadly not in this lifetime) where people will be able to exist without having to worry so much about defintion. It simply won't matter, but it does now. I do believe what gays are going through now is a mirror of what African Americans and women wnet through in the US in the 1950s when racism and misogny were rampant and far more open. Those issues are still being worked on. It is far easier for a public figure to openly defame gays than virtually any other group and get away with it. Their time will come and history won't be kind to them. I don't believe accepting the Judeo-Christian position would be helpful to gays because it's the cloak that people hide their prejudice beneath. Hiding predjudice behind religion and spirituality is such a huge insult to humanity. It's manipulative and wrong.

[commonpeople.livejournal.com]

Very well said. I completely agree with you; I've always felt that my homosexuality was very natural, and part of me, rather than something I took on as an act of imagination.

But I see where she's coming from: her view is that the dominant, capitalist culture, is now preying on "gay culture" (or whatever that is) and imposing "heteronormative" expectations and behaviours on gays and lesbians. She's essentially striking out for a kind of freedom, which she thinks is essential for everyone (she's rightly assuming that most people have experimented with both genders, or fantasize about it). But I do think she's wrong to expect anyone queer to accept living life without civil rights: it's not fair and it's not right. Like you said, it will take a lifetime for us to get to that stage.

[tarotbydiana.livejournal.com]

It's interesting because I had a conversation about this with a gay couple who live together and while they support the right for gays to get married, my friend Brett stated: "Be careful what you wish for." His point was that while marriage is a right all people should have, is it truly something that the gay community needs? I think that there are people in the gay community who have very traditional values and despite whether or not a piece of paper is available to them they will live their lives in the constructs of tradition. I would think that having the same rights that have been traditionally available to the heteronormative population would not diminish the creative side of the "gay culture". I have no idea what the "gay culture" is either but I am going to go with it.

If the heteronormative culture comes banging on the door of gay culture, I say: Blind them with a glittery rainbow, take your rights and run. It may also be that because I live in a liberal city, the affects of the heteronormative culture may be felt less. I am kind of isolated in my liberalism and my fabulousness here. Maybe I need to get out more.

[commonpeople.livejournal.com]

If the heteronormative culture comes banging on the door of gay culture, I say: Blind them with a glittery rainbow, take your rights and run.

Lol!

I think gays, lesbians and transgender people should be given the right for marriage, in so far that a marriage is seen by a government as a family. Having just a contract that gives legal rights is not enough; happy people brought together should be considered a family.

[moral-vacuum.livejournal.com]

Sod being classified as a family - it's the property, pension and next-of-kin rights that are most important right now.

[commonpeople.livejournal.com]

Yes, we want those things too. But ultimately, the family recognition is important.

[moral-vacuum.livejournal.com]

Several vaguely joined-up thoughts here.

I'm not even sure there is such a thing as heteronormative conformity - I think it's just social conformity, and as the majority up until now have been heterosexual couples it comes to be seen as their unique preserve. Nope - boring conformity is for anyone who wants it. If they want it.

My dear wife and I decided at the outset that marriage meant what we wanted it to mean. No traditional roles, no power and control issues, let's just be ourselves and do what works for us. There are plenty of people with the piece of paper who don't act according to tradition, and plenty without it who do. The meaning is what you ascribe to it.

I dislike the attitude held amongst some that if a gay person is in a monogamous relationship they are somehow traitors to the cause. The important thing is that people have a CHOICE too live how they want to live If that is indeed "aping a heterosexual lifestyle", if it makes them happy so what? I know monogamous and open relationships amongst gay and straight couples.

What we need are more heterosexual couples who reject conformity. In fact, what we really need are more people across the whole sexual spectrum to say loudly "gender roles? That's SO last century", and for people who find dull conformity stultifying to say "this is how I live - deal", and just get on with being happy.

I dislike the idea of "the gay community" as a cohesive social type as much as I hate the idea of "the straight community". I reject them all as strait-jackets that get in the way of life.

[phyrephly.livejournal.com]

I think it would be a shame if gays were to suddenly accept the idea of "pansexuality." The world wouldn't be as fun!

When Gabriel was born, a story was written about him in the Philadelphia Inquirer because he was the child of two lesbians, a big deal in the 80's. They've done surprisingly well within the law from what I've seen.

[commonpeople.livejournal.com]

That's very cool that he's the son of lesbians. I'd love to hear one day about his experience growing up (the thought of Kevin and I adopting children one day has crossed my mind.)

[moral-vacuum.livejournal.com]

Rather than accepting the Camille Paglia interpretation of Basic Instinct, I prefer to analyse it as "pseudo-erotic nondescript thriller that's trying to be controversial and playing with gender issues, but isn't anywhere near as clever as it thinks it is. And that tank top - UGH".

[commonpeople.livejournal.com]

Nah, it is clever and it is fun exactly because it plays up the controversy and the gender issues. Less safe and more bad taste, I say.