Anna S. (eliade) wrote,
Anna S.
eliade

subject line #440

Today there was a strong, salty breeze off the bay, and I wandered over to the steak house for lunch and read some more microserfs. I left the book at work, but I had just gotten to the bit where Michael meets "Barcode" and it was just so fucking sweet. It nearly made me sniffle. There was also a great quote about how randomness is actually just patterns too big for our minds to grasp, and that the hardest thing for us to do is give up our belief in randomness. I like that. Even though I currently do believe in randomness, I've had that thought too.

When I was being random the other day, with my ramblings on slash and fandom and stuff, I forgot to include another thought I'd had, which was: we usually talk about sexual orientation as if it's something purely physical, and sex as if it's all about copulation. But now and then I've come across books or essays that suggest sex can be a wider variety of things, a thread of possibility I've also seen in QAF. Like, what if your sexual orientation is on footwear, regardless of gender? And can't sex be phone sex, chatroom sex, mental sex, self-sex? We all know that the way we talk to each other online is often a form of flirting (mad, wild, explicit flirting! she said, looking meaningfully at anniesj). I don't think that often reaches consummation--take that how you like--but who really knows what people do in the privacy of their own rooms?

In a way, redefining your orientation away from the purely human and genital could be seen as making a virtue of necessity--an orientation of solitude--but what if I define myself as bibliosexual? I mean, I get off reading fan-fiction, and writing fan-fiction. Or at least, I get turned on, even if I don't get off during the act. It's very erotic. Watching TV or movies can be erotic, watching vids definitely so--that intense blend of pictures and music can almost help you understand men's fixation on visual porn.

If you don't have one particular person, partner, at whom you direct sexual attraction, maybe your erotic energy gets diffused among other objects of arousal: people, stories, actors, chocolate eclairs. Is that pansexuality? Does it matter at what end you ingest the eclair? Do you have to come to have an erotic experience?

I feel like a cross between Carrie Bradshaw and Dan Savage.

I bought Garnethill, which is a mystery that beth666ann recently recced. Pretty cover: it must be good! I look forward to reading it sometime soon, since BN was out of HP5 when I dropped in tonight.

My Forrest Gump soundtrack--the right one--arrived, and it kicks ass. I put off buying that thing for years--*years*--resisting trendiness or something. Which was stupid. As always. I mean, honestly, here's a similar problem: every single TV show that I have turned up my nose at because it was an adaptation--*every* *single* *one*--I later came to love. I missed being an early adopter for these shows because I assumed that adaptations = badness. BtVS, La Femme Nikita, US QAF.

D'oh.

I think I have watched sisabet's vid now 20 times. I have *listened* to it at least 50, 60. I want to make a catalog of all its clips, all those beautiful moments. Every time Brian's hand slides into Justin's hair and his long fingers work there, my eyes glaze over.

I have decided that I *will* give titles to all the eps. This is my Super Sekrit Project. When I have entitled all existing eps, I will publish them, and beg you all to propagate the meme out onto the web, until it is as firm as canon! Cue maniacal laughter!

::looks both ways secretively, nose twitching like a rat's::

I am very restless.


Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 12 comments