A Philosophical Queer-y
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:14 pm
2001: a gender odyssey
Apologies for my long absence from the board.
Many of you know me as the guy who wants a vagina, all the while remaining a "guy" in lifestyle.
(Yes, that bizarre desire and accompanying mental imagery has resulted in far more bulging panties than I care to admit to .....)
I've been off the board for a while because I'm dating a guy now, and we are quite happy together with (my) things as they are.
When I am not in a relationship, I always seem to want to invert my penis & ball sac into a receptor instead of a progenitor. When I am involved sexually with someone, this desire evaporates and I am very happy to have male genitalia.
This contradiction has traditionally led me to believe that my desires / issues are psychological, and have more to do with rejection or loneliness than with innate identity.
However, I am beginning to wonder if my recurrent interest is not psychological at all, but rather PHILOSOPHICAL, or perhaps even anthropological.
Please bear with me ......
I just read an interesting (techie) article on the production of the film "2001 A Space Odyssey."
I was struck by one particular photograph in the article. It depicted an actor portraying an Astronaut, shaking hands with an Aboriginal man (who was originally recruited to portray one of the lower-evolved ape men from the beginning of the film). Apparently, at a certain point in the film's pre-production, a decision was made to locate the "Ape Men" further back on the evolutionary timeline -- closer to homo-erectus, and further away from homo-sapien. I was intrigued by the photo, because the Aboriginal actor was wearing a "genderless" codpiece that made him completely smooth between the legs.
(Small, scruffy, and smooth .... yeah, that was pretty hot!)
Obviously this photo represents a discarded Hollywood fiction (as the film later depicted pre-evolved hominids more as Apes), but I was nevertheless intrigued by the philosophical implications.
In the initial concepting of the film, pre-humans were seen as genderless. Eventual evolution into more complex Beings brought biological and cognitive distinctions.
There is precedent for this idea in ancient mythology. Early artistic depictions of "Adam" conceived him as a cleft Being: part man, part woman. Adam's rib was removed by God and transformed into Eve. Masculine and feminine, once conjoined and unified, were wrenched apart by God (evolution) and were solidified (imprisoned) in their distinctions by "Knowledge."
What this says to me is that the primal state of Being is genderless.
And, ultimately, the post-human evolving cosmic state of Being is genderless.
Gender serves a very obvious biological (reproductive) function in our current state of biological human evolution.
But I really like what those early ideas in "2001" (as well as what the ancient Hebrew mythologies) were suggesting: that primordial Being was unified, NEITHER and BOTH male & female.
Eventually, Beings proceeded/evolved through the necessarily distinct and divided - but we will ultimately evolve back to a unified (genderless), but higher Being as the cosmologic process continues.
Odyssey, journey, transition - all suggest the same thing to me: the interesting and most revelatory part of the process is the middle part. that's the place where insights emerge.
I think that eunuchs, transgendered, and gender-fucked folk have been given a unique and special cosmic glimpse into the next step in our human evolution:
male, female, both, and neither. Oneness, not Twoness, to paraphrase Woody Allen. (Transsexualism, not so much. I think that is more a product of our current evolutionary binary state. Although, at a point in mid-transition, that glimpse might be there. I am not trans, so I couldn't know. Thoughts)?
However, I am SO INTRIGUED with the intermediary state - the place IN-BETWEEN, and in defiance of, genders.
Yes, this interest is clearly sexual for me. But it is also philosophical.
And I wear panties, and I enjoy having facial hair.
Go figure.
Okay .... time for me to go smoke some more pot ......
Thoughts?!
joey
Apologies for my long absence from the board.
Many of you know me as the guy who wants a vagina, all the while remaining a "guy" in lifestyle.
(Yes, that bizarre desire and accompanying mental imagery has resulted in far more bulging panties than I care to admit to .....)
I've been off the board for a while because I'm dating a guy now, and we are quite happy together with (my) things as they are.
When I am not in a relationship, I always seem to want to invert my penis & ball sac into a receptor instead of a progenitor. When I am involved sexually with someone, this desire evaporates and I am very happy to have male genitalia.
This contradiction has traditionally led me to believe that my desires / issues are psychological, and have more to do with rejection or loneliness than with innate identity.
However, I am beginning to wonder if my recurrent interest is not psychological at all, but rather PHILOSOPHICAL, or perhaps even anthropological.
Please bear with me ......
I just read an interesting (techie) article on the production of the film "2001 A Space Odyssey."
I was struck by one particular photograph in the article. It depicted an actor portraying an Astronaut, shaking hands with an Aboriginal man (who was originally recruited to portray one of the lower-evolved ape men from the beginning of the film). Apparently, at a certain point in the film's pre-production, a decision was made to locate the "Ape Men" further back on the evolutionary timeline -- closer to homo-erectus, and further away from homo-sapien. I was intrigued by the photo, because the Aboriginal actor was wearing a "genderless" codpiece that made him completely smooth between the legs.
(Small, scruffy, and smooth .... yeah, that was pretty hot!)
Obviously this photo represents a discarded Hollywood fiction (as the film later depicted pre-evolved hominids more as Apes), but I was nevertheless intrigued by the philosophical implications.
In the initial concepting of the film, pre-humans were seen as genderless. Eventual evolution into more complex Beings brought biological and cognitive distinctions.
There is precedent for this idea in ancient mythology. Early artistic depictions of "Adam" conceived him as a cleft Being: part man, part woman. Adam's rib was removed by God and transformed into Eve. Masculine and feminine, once conjoined and unified, were wrenched apart by God (evolution) and were solidified (imprisoned) in their distinctions by "Knowledge."
What this says to me is that the primal state of Being is genderless.
And, ultimately, the post-human evolving cosmic state of Being is genderless.
Gender serves a very obvious biological (reproductive) function in our current state of biological human evolution.
But I really like what those early ideas in "2001" (as well as what the ancient Hebrew mythologies) were suggesting: that primordial Being was unified, NEITHER and BOTH male & female.
Eventually, Beings proceeded/evolved through the necessarily distinct and divided - but we will ultimately evolve back to a unified (genderless), but higher Being as the cosmologic process continues.
Odyssey, journey, transition - all suggest the same thing to me: the interesting and most revelatory part of the process is the middle part. that's the place where insights emerge.
I think that eunuchs, transgendered, and gender-fucked folk have been given a unique and special cosmic glimpse into the next step in our human evolution:
male, female, both, and neither. Oneness, not Twoness, to paraphrase Woody Allen. (Transsexualism, not so much. I think that is more a product of our current evolutionary binary state. Although, at a point in mid-transition, that glimpse might be there. I am not trans, so I couldn't know. Thoughts)?
However, I am SO INTRIGUED with the intermediary state - the place IN-BETWEEN, and in defiance of, genders.
Yes, this interest is clearly sexual for me. But it is also philosophical.
And I wear panties, and I enjoy having facial hair.
Go figure.
Okay .... time for me to go smoke some more pot ......
Thoughts?!
joey