Sex and the Single Author

A Call for Writers To Unite

2012-03-03T16:14:00.000-08:00

The Paypal ban.

I think it's sad that this issue has become divisive amongst writers. Almost no writers are in favor of pedophilia, rape, etc. But these things happen and if you can't write about them, you're not stopping these things from happening, you're only stopping people from writing about them. I'm bothered as much as anyone about the homepage of Smashwords, with the sleazy, cheezy porn covers (I won't insult Erotica by calling them Erotica). I'm bothered more by the bad taste (bad writing, bad covers) than the subject matter.

But this isn't about that. It's about huge companies controlling our lives. If you're on the "Right" you supposedly don't want the government controlling you. If you're on the "Left" you don't want big corporations controlling you. Most people are a mix. I agree with both sides. I don't want either controlling our lives.

So, WE SHOULD BE UNITED ON THIS. If we all are disgusted by Smashwords homepage for instance, let's get together as writers and ask Mark Coker how these damn things end up there (and not, for instance, MY book! or YOURS!) and see if we can instead get something better. After all, in a way, it's OUR site (I think Mark Coker would agree in a sense). If we don't want crap on there, maybe we should all contribute time and volunteer to read new stuff (God knows there's enough of us) and create some kind of indie vetting system. That's just off the type of my head. I don't know the answers (there are probably many).

But having these big entities that have only profit in mind making such decisions for us is WRONG. It is wrong as Americans. It is wrong as authors. It is wrong as proponents of free speech. I can't think of any way it is right.

Banks Now Telling You What You Should Read

2012-03-03T13:27:00.001-08:00

I'm disturbed by the number of writers I've seen who find no objection with, or even support, Paypal's decision. http://www.poszu.com/2012/03/02/smashwords-vs-paypal-update/

Many people are obviously missing the issue. This isn't about morality, it's about financial institutions having too much power.

These huge financial institutions have become the primary controllers of the money flow. To say they're just private institutions and they can do whatever they want: Well, NO, they can't. Financial institutions were once actually regulated so that they didn't become too big and gain too much power over the economic system and our society in general. When they reach the level these companies have, there are few realistic alternatives to using their services, unless one wants to commit business suicide. The Founding Fathers would be appalled at the size and power of these institutions.

The huge financial institutions that control (and stole) our money now want to dictate what we read. I think it's about time these financial institutions were broken apart into smaller entities.

Go to the link above and take action. Make it known that we don't want financial institutions to control what we read.

Thanks for listening,
Robert
www.robertszeles.com

Paypal Censorship Update

2012-03-03T03:24:00.000-08:00

I wanted to post this link for everyone with Mark Coker's (of Smashwords) latest update on the issue.
You can see, as he points out, that this act of censorship reveals itself to be not just an attack against these taboo subjects, but an attack on sexual expression in books in general by the fact that the ban is only against books in the Erotica category, not in mainstream fiction where these taboo subjects are also dealt with. Please go to the link and take action to stand against this attack on our freedom of expression.

http://www.poszu.com/2012/03/02/smashwords-vs-paypal-update/

Thanks for caring,
Robert
www.robertszeles.com

Less Sex, More Violence: Moral Hypocrisy and Corporate Blackmail in Paypal Versus Smashwords

2012-03-01T14:56:00.001-08:00

On Februray 27^th, news came out that Paypal wasdemanding that many booksellers, including one of the largest independentdistributors, Smashwords, remove certain types of erotic content.

Smashwords founder, Mark Coker, had no choice but to comply,since Paypal is one of their main financial processing companies. He contactedauthors with material that might fit into the threatened category, all in theErotica genre. He had this to say:

"We think our authors should be allowed to publisherotica. Erotica, despite the attacks it faces from moralists, is a categoryworthy of protection. Erotica allows readers to safely explore aspects ofsexuality that they might never want to explore in the real world... Eroticaauthors are facing discrimination, plain and simple. Topics that are perfectlyacceptable in mainstream fiction are verboten in erotica. That's not fair. Ifyou're going to push the limits, push the limits of great writing, not thelimits of legality."

There was such a negative backlash to this news of corporatecensorship (or corporate blackmail) that Paypal began to soften or at least,partially rethink its position.

Article here:http://www.the-digital-reader.com/2012/02/28/paypal-loosens-grip-on-erotica-ban/

As the author of the article, Nate Hoffelder, smartlypoints out:

"Why the revision? Well, over the weekend a number ofpeople pointed out that Paypal’s ban would extend far beyond the reaches ofthis one genre. For example, it would include Woody Allen biography, historybooks, and even the Bible. There’s also a not so short list of works ofliterature which would fall under the banhammer as well (The Color Purple, IKnow Why the Caged Bird Sings, just to name 2).

I’m not going to argue that Paypal’s actions are wrong; Idid that in my last post. But I do want to point out what a slippery slope thiswas and how poorly conceived it was. Whoever initially came up with this bandidn’t look beyond their personal distaste for the topic."

So, you can’t censor erotica without censoring the Bible (whichis full of rape, killing, mass murder, sex with paranormal entities, etc.). Well,I damn well don’t want to censor the Bible. And I don’t want to censor otherbooks that may offend certain people’s sensibilities. And as an author, I don’twant to have to censor what I write. If what I’ve written has cultural worth,it will hopefully be read and appreciated by those who need or want to read it.If not, it will fade into oblivion (unfortunately, even the good works can).

The fear and repulsion toward the sex impulse in our culturethat divides most people against themselves and creates so much guilt and shamecan be traced, at least partially, to the stern, pleasure-hating, militant, Puritanancestors that had influence in the founding of this country. This is the groupthat, as Gore Vidal points out, was kicked out of England not because they werebeing persecuted for their religious beliefs, but because they were not allowedto persecute others for their beliefs.

This strange moral hypocrisy lingers to this day. It's okayto be "entertained" by murder, torture, serial killing, war and otherhorrid violence, but sex is a "taboo" subject. That's what this isreally about. A free sexual attitude threatens societal control and cuts downon productivity. And according to the twisted Puritan idea, sexual pleasure is,at best, a necessary evil. More likely, it is a tool of the Devil.

But those in control of our society need it to bepro-violence to make all of our military escapades not only acceptable, butheroic, whatever the real intent. Again, as Vidal once said: “The sexualattitudes of any given society are the result of political decisions.” (http://www.gorevidalpages.com/1979/01/sex-is-politics-by-gore-vidal.html)

I have a story, Sick Day, from The Romantic Adventures ofJack & Dora, where the husband ties up his wife, partly with sexual intent(I won’t say exactly why, as it would give away the plot). The public, thatdoes much stranger things in private, needs to be protected from that? In fact,the people claiming to want to protect the public probably do stranger thingsin private than that. But reading about soldiers blowing people’s heads off andserial killers cutting out people’s organs and eating them with fava beans isjust good entertainment?

The more you repress and push down a powerful, naturalimpulse (and sex is probably the big number one), the more it will grow in theunderground and sprout up in a far more twisted, unhealthy form. Historically,in societies where sexuality was a much more open part of day-to-day life,there is almost no evidence of what we think of today as pornography.

If you're really interested in where the Western attitudestoward sex come from, see one of the best books ever written on this subject:Eros Denied. It was written in the 1960s by Wayland Young, a respected BritishLord and member of the European Parliament, of the Western European Union, anda NATO Parliamentarian. This book will not only open your eyes about the sourceof our sexual attitudes, it will also take you on a fascinating journey throughart and cultural history.

If you want to sign the petition,standing against Paypal’s demand for censorship, click here.

A final thought. Is Paypal’s decision motivated by somesense of morality? Is it motivated by a desire to protect the public? Or, is itmotivated by a desire to protect their professional reputation in order to notlose bigger financially support (bigger than their profits from processingerotica)? The concern for commerce in our culture overrides all other concerns.In my next blog post, I will discuss the devastating affect this has on ourlives, and our sex lives in particular.

Happy uncensored reading!

Robert Szeles

(pronounced saylesh)

www.robertszeles.com

The Promo Bullshit Is So Thick, I Can't Get Across the Publishing Pasture

2012-02-24T17:44:00.002-08:00

I cannot believe the promo bullshit I see by some authors. "If you like Ray Bradbury, you'll love _________." I mean, come on. Really? If I LIKE Bradbury, I'll LOVE you? Because, of course, Bradbury tried his best, but you've kicked it up a notch. Bradbury is kind of like the watered down version of you. Bradbury is but the pupil, YOU are the master.

I mean, if I would dare to make such a comparison, in my case for instance, I would turn it around: "If you LOVE Gore Vidal, you'll LIKE Robert Szeles." I would probably even add, "you MIGHT like Robert Szeles."

I understand the desperation that comes with wanting to get attention for your book (especially if you think it's decent and had that validated by outside sources). But after awhile, all the phony 5 star reviews and exaggerated praise and complete lack of perspective turn even the valid claims into so much noise.

The bullshit's so thick I can't walk through the pasture. NONE of us can, anymore. And that's bad, because ALL THE GOOD BOOKS ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE!!!

Trying to deliver less bullshit and more good writing,
Robert Szeles
If You LOVE Gore Vidal, Terry Southern or Nicholson Baker, you MIGHT LIKE Robert Szeles.
Jack & Dora Do L.A. Paperback: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1468195808
For Kindle: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B006T3O40Y/
All other ebook formats: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/119028 www.robertszeles.com

Reading is Pleasure: Genre or Literary Fiction

2012-02-20T23:56:00.000-08:00

We read fiction books because they give us pleasure. Our minds are caressed by the splendid use of language, delighted by clever dialogue, seduced by intriguing stories and ideas.

One can come up with all kinds of rational-minded, literary and intellectual reasons for why we like books. But in the end, it is because they make us feel good or they make us think in a certain way, which makes us feel good. Some people like to read a book that makes them feel bad or sad or scared, but they read the book because they want to feel that way. They believe they will derive some pleasure from going into those emotional states or they believe that eventually they will feel better from having experienced those states.

“Genre” fiction is often said to have less value than “literary” fiction because it is supposedly written more for entertainment than for literary achievement. Michael Chabon doesn’t believe this and defends genre fiction in his essay, “Reading and Writing Along the Borderlands” from his non-fiction collection, Maps and Legends. There’s an interesting interview with Michael Chabon on the Los Angeles Times Hero Complex site written a few years ago about this subject. As Chabon says, the majority of genre fiction is lowbrow crap, but the majority of literary fiction is highbrow crap.

Chabon was greatly influenced by many genre writers, as was I, and I feel a kinship to him. I have had a hard time categorizing my novel, Jack & Dora Do L.A., partly because it has fanciful elements (partly because it has explicit sex, something else that is prejudiced against, which I will discuss in an upcoming post), yet is mostly a romantic comedy drama perhaps in a similar catogory to Breakfast At Tiffany’s. Chabon has ventured into this allegedly questionable area of genre fiction with some of his own work, such as Gentlemen of the Road and The Yiddish Policemen's Union.

Chabon also talks about how reading puts us into a certain pleasurable state that’s connected with our mindset in childhood and early adolescence. I couldn’t agree more. Like Chabon, my interest is in good books, no matter what the genre, that will give me the sort of free, dreamy pleasure that I remember from childhood summers.

I understand the suspicion toward much genre literature, which is badly written, with more emphasis on surface thrills and often a lack of care for language, style and meaning. But I have equal suspicion for books that are heavy on style or overwritten, with little regard for the reader. No matter how important a work is supposed to be, I have no interest in reading it if I derive no pleasure from the experience.

On the genre side, this is why I so love Fritz Leiber, one of the greatest fantasists of all time. His fantasy series of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser is an incredibly imaginative series of tales with style, wit, humor and passion. I have derived countless hours of pleasure and joy from reading and re-reading them, and I would never consider them less important than any “literary” fiction. Another writer of incredible imagination, poetry and style was the science fiction writer Cordwainer Smith. Dashiell Hammett and Robert E. Howard were two of the most consummate storytellers to ever write. Within half a page, you are completely lost in the world and story they have created. The brilliance of their style was that you couldn’t detect any. There are, of course, many other great genre writers.

On the supposed “literary” side, Gore Vidal, Shirley Jackson, Michael Chabon and John Fowles come to mind as brilliant writers who entertain. And few novels are more readable than Lolita by Vladimir Nabakov. But some novels are very difficult to read, yet give much pleasure as well. A perfect example would be Justine by Lawrence Durrell. Again, there are many others great and entertaining “literary” writers.

What these writers all have in common is that they give us pleasure. They may also help us to find some comfort or meaning in our lives, make us feel less lonely, and perhaps help us better understand reality and our place in it. And that also gives us pleasure.

Robert Szeles

(pronounced saylesh)

www.robertszeles.com

Why Books Shouldn't Be Free

2012-02-07T20:48:00.000-08:00

My favorite authors are all professionals, meaning they get paid for their work, some more, some less. Some worked other jobs (most did at some point, and it's a valuable experience), some didn't.

I hear many authors (and other artists) say that they don't mind giving away their work because they don't do it for the money, they do it out of love for the work and because they want people to read what they've written. But the idea that someone doesn't need to be or should be paid because they're not doing it for the money doesn't hold up. Only artists are taken advantage of that way, and we let it happen by the false sense of competition created and the devaluing of our work ("You should just be happy someone's reading your story.")

"Hi, I'm a doctor. I don't do this for the money, it's because I love healing people. So, no, you don't have to pay me."
"Hi, I'm an architect. I love what I do, and heck, think how many people are going to see my building. No charge for my services of course."
"Hi, I'm an inventor. I love dabbling and creating new things, so sure, you can have my patent. I don't do it for the money."
"Hi, I'm a scientist. Science is my passion and my life. Of course I don't expect to be paid for what I love to do. I'm happy to help society."
"Hi, I'm a teacher. I love children and helping them learn and become better grown-ups. You don't have to pay me for what I do, I do it out of love." (oops, that's just about true for teachers, who are also screwed!)

Our society values what we teach it to value by our choices. Some of those choices are difficult and require courage. I don't think every author should be paid a large amount of money for their work. I think those whose work has value should be compensated financially in a reasonable way because THAT is how our present society expresses cultural value. As soon as tech gear and rent and food, etc. is free, I'll be happy to give away all my stories.

We all shape our society by the decisions we make. Whatever yours are, as a person who creates or as a person who enjoys the creative work of others, realize you're affecting more than just yourself.

Robert
http://www.robertszeles.com/
http://robertszeles.blogspot.com/

Stop Fighting and Start Creating

2012-02-03T00:42:00.000-08:00

I've noticed an interesting phenomenon. People get caught up in causes that seem so dire and suddenly something changes: a scientific discovery, for instance, that makes the whole thing irrelevant.

For instance: stem cell research controversy. The "pro-life" crowd is up in arms about it and tries to stop it because they think there's some conspiracy to create abortion mills to harvest stem cells.

http://www.care2.com/causes/susan-g-komen-foundation-also-stops-funding-embryonic-stem-cell-research.html#ixzz1lJ1mazKr

What's hilarious is many of these controversial subjects would be irrelevant if people put their focus on finding solutions instead of championing the cause of the day. Guess what? The issue will soon be irrelevant and these kind of people will have to find some other witch to hunt.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16456136

Same thing with eating meat. I totally get why people are against it. But now, they're growing edible meat from cow cells. So, you'll be able to have a steak without killing a cow. Issue over. Time to lay down the picket signs and find something else to do. If humans stopped putting their efforts into justifying themselves and demonizing others to make themselves feel righteous and put their energy towards solving our mutual problems together, all this bullshit would go away and we'd live in a fucking Star Trek-like utopia.

I get so irritated with people and their self-righteous causes. Instead of looking at "the other side" as demons intent on eating your children, look at the core problem, the core human need and try to address that. Use some of that energy towards creative problem solving instead of demonizing others and championing your self-righteous cause. That is, do that if you REALLY are interested in improving the human condition for everyone.

If not, just keep on doing what you're doing. Feed your ego and let the suffering continue. It's up to you.

Being Right Won't Make You Happy

2012-01-31T13:45:00.000-08:00

Reading opposing comments on an online article lately, I was struck by how these two supposed sides (which don't really exist, most people have mixed feelings and viewpoints on a variety of issues, and those viewpoints change over time) demonize each other and are so blind to their own erroneous reasoning. I easily took the word "Liberal" as used in one of the posts and replaced it with "Conservative" to get a sentence that was equally true (or equally false):

The original user's comment was:
"Liberals are so hypocritical when it comes to choice. It is choice until they disagree with it and then its a federal mandate."

Changing the word makes it this:
"Conservatives are so hypocritical when it comes to choice. It is choice until they disagree with it and then its a federal mandate."

So, this statement could be considered true of people labeled as "Liberals." But, if so, it's equally true of people labeled "Conservatives." Conservatives say they want small government, but not if it's for issues they support. They're fine with a bloated military and having the Federal government raid state-approved medical marijuana facilities, etc. So many of these statements can have right/left or Liberal /Conservative interchanged. People are being blinded by their erroneous sense of self-rightness and the erroneous sense of wrongness of "the other side."

I would suggest everyone calm down, get off your high horse, realize we all want very similar things in life and try this ego-busting, enlightening exercise: take "the other sides" point of view and argue for their case. Do it SINCERELY. Even if it's just in the privacy of your thoughts.

No doubt the thought of doing so brings up feelings of fear or resentment. All the more reason to do so. At the very least, you might find "the other side" are not a bunch of stupid/evil/corrupt/irresponsible troublemakers. (They are human beings, your fellow human beings, and in this case, your fellow Americans. They love their families as you do. They want peace and an abundant life as you do.) At the most, you might find your concrete views softened enough to allow for real dialogue and you will stop being the source of the problem (unceasing conflict) and part of the solution (creative, cooperative thinking and communication) . If we don't stop this violent verbal barrage and fake polarizing of the country, things are going to get worse and worse.

The answer is not for one of these fictional sides to win, the answer is for us to learn to live together respectfully (if not lovingly) and create a brilliant society for all with the incredible human resources we have at our disposal. This begins with open minds and respectful, open dialogue. It begins with caring more about everyone's wellbeing than your own point of view. It begins with letting go the idea that you have to be right. Being right won't make you happy. Loving and being loved will.

Something Wonderful Is Coming

2012-01-25T23:03:00.000-08:00

Tonight,I awoke and lay in bed in the darkness with a delicious expectant feeling, asif the happy memories of a thousand lifetimes flirted at the edges of my mind.It was a wonderful, mysterious longing, wholly devoid of any melancholy, fullof blissful expectation. Not just a feeling, but an abstract vision within mymind implying space, place and experience.

Iclosed my eyes and tried to be still, to hold at bay the mundane wakefulthoughts that I knew would chase this apprehension away. It flitted at the edgeof my thoughts and emotions before finally being replaced with a curious,questioning calm.

Ihave experienced this several times before. It was like the unfocused memory ofa dream that was far more real than the reality into which I was againawakening. But I knew without doubt that it was not the memory of a pleasantdream. It was, in fact, the opposite: an awakening into some truth aboutreality that I could only remember as a vague feeling in that state ofconsciousness that lies towards the end of that short period that lies justbetween waking and sleeping.

Thisexperience (I can think of no better word for it) was the lingering presence ofsomething hidden within me that holds the answer to everything in this life, orsomething that makes all our questions irrelevant. If it can be called ananswer, it is one without words. And so, even this vague intimation of"the answer", expressed with words, can only yield thisunsatisfactory recollection. As soon as I got out of bed and began writing, Icould feel the words and myself already getting in the way.

Perhaps,I have tried too hard. Perhaps I should only say:

"Myfriends, do not let your hearts be troubled and do not despair...

Somethingwonderful is coming."

Female Romantic Archetypes of 1960's Television Shows, Part 3 of 3: Julie Newmar's Catwoman, Kitten With Claws

2012-01-22T23:48:00.000-08:00

JulieNewmar was beautiful as Catwoman. But beautiful does not mean sexy. What issexy is partly a subjective perception, but also, I believe, partly aninherently archetypal recognition of someone that is sexually desirable in aprimal way that almost transcends culture.

Why,as a child, I was able to perceive Julie Newmar's Catwoman as a captivating feminine sex symbol is beyond my understanding. But the point is, it was not preconditionedby something else. I was too young to have seen much anything else. In mystory, "Cat and Canary," from The Romantic Adventures of Jack &Dora, Jack reveals something about himself that I drew straight from my life,concerning his memories of watching Julie Newmar on the Batman TV show. Itbears quoting.

Jack:

"Ithink I had my first sexual stirrings from seeing her, possibly this veryepisode, as a child of six or seven. I actually remember sitting on the darkolive green carpet in the living room, or more specifically, lying on mystomach, face held in my hands with my elbows propping me up. I also rememberthe episode in color, but that's not right because we only had a black andwhite TV back then. Maybe it's partly an imagined memory, but mostly I thinkit's real. I don't remember specific feelings or thoughts, I just know that Iwas mesmerized by her, that there were stirrings. Mind you, they were very,very distant stirrings. Probably I was thinking,"I wish she was my mommy!”

IfMrs. Peel gave me an appreciation for strong women, Julie Newmar's Catwomangave me an appreciation for seductive, crazy ones. Or maybe that appreciationcame from somewhere else (my mother's own, occasionally, unpredictable, wildnature?). Either Catwoman embodied it or exacerbated it, or both. Catwoman goesbeyond even Jeannie (from I Dream of Jeannie) as a completely moral-freecharacter who promises a life free of society-created guilt and obligation.

JulieNewmar had a fresh, effortless, unpretentious sexiness that is rare. No otherwoman that has played the role has even come close to her performance. Thehonesty of both her passion and her callousness are well illustrated in perhapsthe most wonderful scene of the series between Batman and Catwoman. Batmanseems to finally be succumbing to Catwoman's charms. She suggests they go awaytogether, just the two of them. Batman asks, "What about Robin?"Catwoman replies, completely without malice, "We'll kill him. Painlessly,of course."

Onecannot call Catwoman evil or hate her for her cruelty any more than one canhate a cat that has caught a mouse. She is not evil. She is completely andtotally self-interested. Somehow, this adds to her sexual allure. Perhaps it isthe fact that she is completely undivided. She suffers no guilt. She knowscompletely who and what she is. We, with our guilt, mixed feelings, neuroses, fearsand unfulfilled longings, envy such a state. I myself have stared at a cat,envying their self-sufficiency and self-completion.

Thus,even Catwoman's callousness makes her more attractive because it is naturallypart of who she is. And that brings us back to the idea of what is sexy.Someone is sexy when they are self-assured, undivided, without malice, pretense,motive or intention, a being complete within themselves, sexual for the sake ofbeing sexual, not even aware that they are sexy. Catwoman invites us into thisundivided world of self-gratification, unhindered by the present mores ofsociety or the psychological baggage of our past experience.

JulieNewmar as Catwoman represents uninhibited, uncomplicated, honest, passionatesexuality. Who doesn't want that?

Sheis the Puritan's nightmare. She was, and always will be, one of my heroes andone of my greatest desires.

Robert Szeles (saylesh)
www.robertszeles.com
http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/RobertSzeles
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B006T8KFRK

Female Romantic Archetypes of 1960's Television Shows, Part 2 of 3: The Inimitable Emma Peel, Man's Best (Sexy) Friend

2012-01-21T01:55:00.001-08:00

Whenthe producers of The Avengers were looking for someone to replace the characterof Cathy Gale, as played by the tough and lovely Honor Blackman (who herself was a feminine icon,though the show was not yet popular anywhere but Britain), they knew they needed to find someone with Man Appeal. That's how they came up with the name of agent John Steed's new companion: Emma (M. for Man-A) Peel. They found DianaRigg. And man appeal she had.

ButEmma Peel was no sex kitten, no plaything for a man. Of course she had to bestrong, since she was a British secret service agent. But they went far beyondthat. Emma Peel was the equal of Steed in every way, if not his superior. Shecould match any man in brains, resourcefulness, charm, courage and evenphysical prowess. Many were the episodes when she was judo chopping, flippingor even tossing a man around a room. Yet, she did not forfeit her femininecharm, beauty and grace. For a time in the late sixties, every man wanted EmmaPeel and every woman wanted to be her.

Butin what way did every man want her? What, exactly, did Emma Peel represent?

EmmaPeel was very much an archetype of the Goddess whose name was shared by theactress who played her: Diana. Emma was basically an Amazon. No doubt lesbianwomen found her as attractive as heterosexual men. But to either, sherepresented not only the female warrior, but also, the sexually unattainablewoman (like the Goddess Diana).

Theyset her up at Mrs. Emma Peel and thereby solve the issue of her sexualavailability. She is supposedly a widow, her husband lost in some unnamed (asfar as I can remember) military campaign. She is thus free to flirt with JohnSteed or any other man, but it remains unspoken but implied that she isunavailable, perhaps because not enough time has passed since the loss of herhusband, or even better, because he was not surely killed, but lost and assumeddead (SPOILER: This turns out to be the case, as her husband returns at the endof the last episode with Mrs. Peel.). Thus, she has the perfect set up to besexually unattainable and morally admired for that, as she is honoring herhusband's memory, or hoping for his return. She is also, therefore, free to bea completely independent woman, free of society's previous limitations uponwomen, yet not judged as immoral or unwanted because of her single status.

Asa romantic archetype, she is the ultimate, equal companion for a man, admired,perhaps even desired, but never giving herself sexually to anyone. She remainsnot a sex object, but an object of admiration, a sexual ideal. Of course, thisfits in perfectly with the British sensibility. Mrs. Peel and Mr. Steed flirtand there is double-talk and sexual innuendo going on between them, often donewith an air of false naivete or modesty. This is the sexual human, fighting tobreak free, or at least cheating enough to not grant complete victory to, theinhuman Puritan sensibility.

Onthe positive side, Emma was a symbol of women's liberation and empowerment. Iwas quite young when I first watched The Avengers and I believe Emma Peel had avery positive influence on my young psyche that stayed with me. I grew toadmire and be attracted to strong women. But even now, I do not feel sexualdesire for the character as much as admiration and an indefinable romanticlonging. One longs to be in love with Emma Peel. But one cannot evenimagine fucking her. At least, I can't.

Nextweek, I'll talk someone whom I feel quite differently about. A character, playedby the indescribably sensuous Julie Newmar, that drove me and still drives memad with sexual desire. A character that makes even Barbara Eden's Jeannie seemcontrolled and proper by comparison. I'm talking about the ultimate femmefatale: Catwoman.

Robert Szeles (saylesh)
www.robertszeles.com
http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/RobertSzeles
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B006T8KFRK

Female Romantic Archetypes of 1960's Television Shows, Part 1 of 3: Jeannie Out of the Bottle

2012-01-11T01:14:00.000-08:00

For some reason I became curious about re-watchingthe 1960s T.V. show, I Dream of Jeannie, partly from nostalgia, partly becauseI love the imaginative romantic angle.

By the 7 minute mark of the pilot episode, I wasgetting choked up. Amazingly, by that point they already hint at the longing oflove and possible loss between them. This is accomplished by amazingperformances by Hagman and Eden, a great story set up and an incredible musicalscore by Richard Wess. Within a few minutes, youremotions are moved as if you've already watched a full-length movie.
It wasplayful, erotic and hilarious; far better than I remembered it.

Strangely, it left me feeling forlorn. There wassomething I had suspected about myself and watching this show confirmed it. Itmay be true of you as well if you grew up anytime since the golden age oftelevision.

My romantic notions of male/female relations wereinformed by certain shows I watched as a child. They may have helped form my idealof female romantic figures. This wasn't only because I was young andimpressionable. Not all shows had that effect. But some of the shows were verysymbolically powerful and they were illustrating an archetype of romance that Ibelieve already exists in the human unconscious mind.

I believe this was especially true of the showsfrom the 1960s. I will not try to explain why because I just don't know. Therewas something special about that time period in many ways. I don't think it issimply because I was a child then. I also saw reruns of shows from the 1950s asa child and was still at a very impressionable, formative age in the 1970s. Idon't think the shows of those eras had the same power.

Of all the shows, the ones that had the strongesteffect on me were I Dream of Jeannie, Batman, and The Avengers.

Barbara Eden as Jeannie in I Dream of Jeannie wasthe most playful, warm, accessible feminine symbol. And her relationship with LarryHagman's character Tony was also warm and playful. This show illustrated the idealizedromantic version of the male/female archetype, though with deliciouscomplications. There are complex dynamics going on between the two characters.

When Captain Tony Nelson's capsule crashes on adeserted island, he finds the bottle and inadvertently sets Jeanie free. She isbound by the law of the Djinn to become Tony's servant. After she uses herpower to guide the rescue helicopter to the deserted island where Tony isstranded, Tony grants her freedom immediately. But Jeannie chooses to devoteher life to him in return for the fact that he freed her from the bottle and freedher from slavery to him. She returns to the bottle and hides herself withTony's belongings, going back with him to Florida where she turns his lifeupside-down.

Tony is constantly warring with his feelingstoward Jeannie, trying to resist her but wanting her. He feels protective ofher, which is brought out even more by her childlike personality. But if she isa child, she is one with almost unlimited powers, powers to permanently changeTony's life. But her real power in changing his life, the real threat to Tony'sdisciplined existence comes not from the fact that she is a genii but that sheis an uncontrollable woman. Her powers merely magnify this threat.

Genii is mischievous, wanting to serve him, butcrazy with jealousy and a desire to make him happy. He is sometimes comfortedand other times threatened by her immense devotion and passion for him (At thebeginning Tony is engaged to the general's daughter. With Jeannie on the scene,this quickly comes to an end). Half the time she is helping him, half the timeshe seems to be sabotaging his life, but sometimes that is due to her naivety of culturalnorms.

Tony's reticence to become involved with her isunderstandable due to Jeannie's shortcomings and her sometimes-frighteningsupernatural nature. But after a time, one begins to question his resistanceto this dream girl. Isn't this what every man is supposed to want? Isn't she justtrying to make him happy? And it's clear that he loves her in some manner. But hejust won't let down his emotional barriers and freely express his love to her.Is it because he doesn't really know what's good for him? Or maybe he feelshe doesn't deserve it or hasn't worked hard enough to have her.

I believe the answer to these questions comesfrom the rogue element of Jeannie's power and personality. She is untamed andgoes against society's mores and morays, of which Tony is a representative asan officer and astronaut of the United States Government — in fact, themilitary. So she is, in a way, trying to help free him from his own repression.At worst, she is a god of chaos and mischief, sabotaging his best-laid plansand threatening his false sense of control in an uncontrollable world. At best,she represents an escape from the joyless manmade world of duty, accomplishmentand obligation into a world of pleasure and joyful abandon for life.

As the series progresses, you can see thatJeannie is bringing out Tony's true personality, helping him to become who hetruly is by the nature of simply being who she truly is. This is an idealizednotion of the romantic relationship when the right man and woman find eachother.

Next week I will study another female symbol whois also uncontrollable, but very self-controlled. She represents the woman as equalpartner in every way, the perfect comrade and friend. Her name is Emma Peel.

Robert Szeles (saylesh)
www.robertszeles.com
http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/RobertSzeles
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B006T8KFRK

The Prejudice Against Casual Sex

2011-12-29T00:04:00.000-08:00

There was an excellent article in Psychology Today recently, written by a very intelligent man named Stanley Siegel. It talked about how sexual encounters outside committed relationships can be meaningful. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/intelligent-lust/201112/in-defense-casual-sex http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/intelligent-lust/201112/in-defense-casual-sex

I referred some people to this article and was not surprised to receive some negative reactions. One person said, "I can't agree with that statement." The word "can't" is most telling. This reveals a prior belief system that prevents one from objectively and rationally receiving and considering new information. It makes it possible for one to be blind to or simply reject facts. I have found that often people have the strongest beliefs and opinions about things with which they have little or no experience. We fear most what we do not understand. Fear makes us very reactive and defensive.

But however one feels personally about something, the experience of others cannot be dismissed simply because it does not fit into our comfortable belief system. Just because one has not personally experienced something doesn't mean it's not true. If other people have that experience then it simply is. One can choose to disbelieve them because it doesn't fit into one's prescribed beliefs. But one would be presumptuous to tell someone that their experience is wrong. For instance, I may not be a Hindu, but I would be an arrogant, judgmental fool to say that no one can be happy if they are a Hindu just because I don't believe in it. Many are happy being Hindu. To think others cannot be happy because they do not believe what I believe is narcissistic and delusional. Their happiness is just as real as yours or mine. That makes it an experiential fact of the human experience.

The same goes for sex outside what is referred to as a "committed relationship." If sex is only "meaningful" inside a "committed relationship", how long must that relationship go on before the sex is meaningful and how long must it continue after for the relationship to be considered committed? What are the rules and who makes them? Surely we must make our own judgements about our own experiences. No one can tell me what I should or shouldn't feel about something. What an experience means to me is up to me to decide based on my thoughts and feelings.

I know from personal experience that I can have a very meaningful connection with someone I've barely known, through sex or otherwise. It can have great meaning for me, for the other person and for us both. It has happened many times. That doesn't mean I know the person. Experiencing meaning and knowing someone well are two different things. As for knowing someone, some people are married for years and still don't really know each other.

We have a lot of derogatory terms for experiences that don't fit into the monogamous cultural programming. "One night stand," "Casual sex," etc. I've had good sexual experiences with female friends with whom I remain very close friends. It wasn't "casual sex" or a "one night stand." We aren't even "friends with benefits" (a shallow, though rather amusing, term). Our culture shows less respect to single people in general. Why do married people get a tax break? We need to start asking questions about cultural ideas that claim to be the ultimate answers, since these ideas are not working for the majority of the populace, and are in fact, causing much suffering. Most importantly, we need to be asking these questions of ourselves.

Robert Szeles (saylesh)
www.robertszeles.com
http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/RobertSzeles
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B006T8KFRK