So the following is a distillation of some ideas that I've been fumbling with for a while, and even mentioning in some (other, smaller) forums, so if they sound familiar, I apologize. Chapter the first in which Will talks about underpants: So the other day, I was dressed dully, as being a librarian is wont to make one do: blue-gray pants, blue and white shirt, gray tie, gray socks, brown shoes and belt. Underneath, however, I was equipped with lime green, polka dotted underpants. As I was giggling to myself about the sillyness of my underpants, it struck me: What better expressor of the flamboyances we keep tucked just below the surface? Underpants: the hidden canvas, the scroll tucked neatly around our goodies whose verse might *just* tell a secret ("But I like you"? "I'd rather be wearing bright green dots"? "I didn't expect to get quite this naked with anyone tonight"?) to someone we want to tell (or otherwise enlighten) badly enough to shed those clumsy outer pants. I like that. Chapter two in which Will talks about kisses (in accordance with Sinister post code 374.68y paragraph 3, which requires that I talk about little else): 1. Inasmuch as 'you' consists exclusively of you, and 'I' consists utterly of me (or is it I?), then 'us' (we?) is really just a kind of aggregate of you and I. Chemically speaking, a mixture and not a compound. 2. Kissing, it has been said by someone whose identity I have forgotten if I ever knew, is the process of getting two people so close to one another that they cannot see the flaws. I can't help but see these two as related concepts: is kissing simply the anatomical juxtaposition or two orbicularis oris muscles in a state of contraction, or is it something else? Perhaps a sometimes-casual, sometimes-feverish attempt to cram simultaneously as much of 'you' into 'I' and 'I' into 'you' as possible, bringing the elements so close together as to blur their borders? Can proximity, generating heat and burning out impurities like some kind of Bessemer process, result in a more permanent fusing, an alloy of youandI as distinct from a heap of you stirred up with a pile of I? I always seem to have more questions than answers. In conclusion, Will's Infinite (or at least extended) Sex Hypothesis (now, this one has already been scoffed at by a couple of you who knew me when I was in Texas, including but not limited to the lovely and talented ree. However, I refuse to let it go, so I put it forth to the lot of you for further mockery. Anyway, it might be more of an ideology than a hypothesis): Ahem. The following is based upon the assumption that we are all in agreement about 3 fundamental things: 1. the notion that sex ends with the male orgasm is false (see lesbian sex for more details) 2. the notion that sex ends with anybody's orgasm is false or at least not necessarily true (see those lucky multi-orgasmic bastards for more details). 3. 'Sex' is not strictly genital-genital contact between a man and a woman (christ, don't be so provincial). Anyway, so WIOALESH follows pretty reasonably (I think): Since there is no discernable endpoint of sex, it doesn't end at all. Or at least not all at once. Further, since sex is not a particular, explicit activity, but rather a hazily defined category of activity, once you have entered a state of sex with a partner, that state doesn't end (or at least it takes a great deal longer than we currently imagine), rather heretofore non-sexual activities (like balancing the checkbook--an activity that could use some sexing up) become sexual in their own right, and all of your intercourse becomes sexual. I always feel a bit silly saying that last part to people. umm okay bye will porter __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage http://sports.yahoo.com/ +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ +---+ Brought to you by the Sinister mailing list +---+ To send to the list mail sinister@missprint.org. To unsubscribe send "unsubscribe sinister" or "unsubscribe sinister-digest" to majordomo@missprint.org. WWW: http://www.missprint.org/sinister +-+ "sinsietr is a bit freaky" - stuart david, looper +-+ +-+ "legion of bedroom saddo devotees" "peculiarly deranged fanbase" +-+ +-+ "pasty-faced vegan geeks... and we LOST!" - NME April 2000 +-+ +-+ "frighteningly named Sinister List organisation" - NME May 2000 +-+ +-+ "sick posse of f**ked in the head psycho-fans" - NME June 2001 +-+ +-+ Nee, nee mun pish, chan pai dee kwa +-+ +-+ Snipp snapp snut, sa var sagan slut! +-+ +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+