Monday, July 30, 2012

Deliverance

Forty years ago today, the movie "Deliverance" was released here in the USA becoming an overnight blockbuster. This despite the fact that all in all, it was in fact a rather mediocre film. Oh sure, the music was incredible and it was a unique first for a film and many of the visuals were above par for the time, and of course there was Burt Reynolds... That lovely lovely Burt Reynolds! Oh My God I could lick every inch of that man's body and ask for more!

Anyway, Ahemmmm....ANYWAY... for the most part if we are honest, the movie was not really "all that and a bag of chips so to speak." So why is it that forty years later I'm at a party and hearing references being made to this movie and more so to the rape scene that was key to the plot? Why? Why would should I be casually hearing folks talking about some second rate movie that is forty years out of the can...  Was it is just because it showed a rape scene? Really? Are we that offended by the concept of rape as a society these days that films about it stick in the mass's mind, or, might it be that this particular rape, in this particular movie stands out so because it happened, not to a woman, but to a man! Must be, cause here we are, forty years later and even the idea of man on man rape is still so incredibly disturbing that this shitty little movie has not and I fear will not ever join the rest of the seventies schlock in obscurity! Inagine that! All because of porky little man being raped in a scene? So, I have to ask... During that same forty years time span how many women do you suppose were shown being raped as one of the basic elements of a movie plot? One? Ten? A hundred? A thousand? Sadly? I would wager it goes easily in the tens, if not hundreds of thousands. Particularly if you add in the one eyed god that squats in most living rooms! Heck! it tain't nothing at all to see some woman being raped on the little screen any night of the week! It's such a common plot device that they've made whole series round this easy idea! "Ma! Pa! Gather up the kids and get your parts in here, cause its time for Law and Order, Special Victims to come on! Gee, Pa, I wonder what sorta  skanky ho is gonna get what's coming to her tonight?"

A man is raped on the big screen screen and it sticks in the public consciousness like glue for four decades with no sign of abating, but if a woman gets raped it doesn't stick in folks heads past the commercial!

Why? Why would there be such a disparity between a man being raped and a woman? Why?

It's because there is a very real divide in this world between those who are male and those who are female and that extends way past their being physically different from each other. The divide I'm speaking of is that yawning chasm in our social structure were women are, women have been, and for anytime in the foreseeable future, women will be considered at best, second class humans. Creatures who for all their looking sorta human are far below the value of any man! Like it or not, women are still chattel! Women are still valued possessions! Property to be claimed by theman who has the balls to stick his dick into her first.  All he as gotta do is just get her to spread her legs willingly or other wise cause once he has done his business inside her, he has marked her for the world from that moment as his property! A concept. as much as we might not want to admit it is deeply ingrained into our social fabric that it takes not one, not two, but many many MANY long hard looks at ourselves to actually see this for what it is!

Take for example the standard wedding's end. You know! Where at the end of the wedding ceremony the official says to the gathered witnesses "I now pronounce you, Man and Wife! You may kiss the bride!" "Pronounce you?" "Man and his what?" the Bride?" "You may kiss... her?" Tell me, have you EVER heard it said in reverse? Even in jest? "I now pronounce YOU, Woman and Husband! You, (referring to the woman here as dominate) may kiss the groom!" Try just for a second to imagine how far into the floor jaws would drop among the gathered witnesses to this ritual of the deflowering if it were to ever said in such a manner! Why they would up and tar and feather that benighted official before ridding him out of town on a rail! How dare he insult men in such a horrible horrible way!

Transgender is at it's very core the embodiment of that same misogyny! The "Trans-Woman" is not really a female! Oh No! God Forbid! "She" is by the very nature of "Transgender" a man who wants to act in, shudder, feminine ways.... Ways which by their submissive and decidedly lesser nature run contrary to the socially expected norm for all men! Any man who wants this for himself is tasked with the impossible! He must find a way to "express" something which is seen as feminine and lesser as his male desires. While at the same time, not loosing any of his right and status of being male! This is why if you stop to think about it, why all "trans-fiction" starts with the man who is about to be changed in the story, being forced, charmed, bewitched, enchanted, coerced, drugged, dominated, intimidated etc etc etc against his will! Because if this man was forced to become feminine, (are you listening Zoe Brain? How about you there Chloe Prince? Sophie? The rest of you?) then, by default, this man like the prisoner in the POW camp who is tortured past his breaking point, he still retains his male privilege and rank while he is also getting to act out in these "lesser ways" contrary to all other laws of male status! After all he was FORCED to do this! Really! He had simply No choice! None! I mean who would have thought it! One little bee sting and you have to start wearing panties... It's all quite sad really! Poor fella's!  Just like the poor guy who went in for a liver test and came out a raging sissy!

Sadly for these men, the real world the rest of us live in does not have super hives of sex change bees, or hosts of evil private clinics staffed by demented lesbian Nazi female dominatrix doctors just itching to transform those strong suffering men into thin waif-ish women who, oh my, must surrender to this terrible fate or they will most certainly die! Not only doe it makes for bad fiction but out here in the real world! A man seen wearing the garb of a woman who looks the least like a man, not only looks the fool,  he is freely derided as actually one for his choosing to lessen himself to the rank of... Shudder female!

My oh my! What to do? What to do when there are no bees handy! No medical tests or hair loss drug bad reactions!

The answer to this dilemma of men's desire for lesser and their want for the same vs a world that says no to a man lowering himself came in the form of one such man... Dr Arnold Loman, Phd. Savior to the Forlorn transvestite A man who is otherwise known as "Charles Virginia Prince..."

Dr Loman had this same socially unacceptable twist to his bein. He as horrible as it sounds, liked getting his jollies by playing dress up!  Something so revolting to the rest of the world that it was a crime but which was so completely rewarding to him (but not his first or second spouse) that he wanted to do it morning noon and night! Dear Arnold it seems, even once thought he wanted to be a "real girl" like an inverse Pinocchio, but he was smart enough, well he was smart enough AFTER he was turned down by Dr Bejamine as not being transsexual to know that he wanted to be a woman but only "a woman" in the tits and ass parts and pieces ways that mattered to him as a functioning male. Ways which if done right would allow him to still play dress up and maybe even have some boobies like a "pretty girl" and he could do it all 24/7 while getting to keep "the precious!" After all how, as he said to me,  could he put it to the little woman on their Saturday night tussle after a week of his playing dress up if he had no dick!

Arnold's history is well known and while he is a sick fuck, is not the subject of this essay. Rather it is the fact that what Arnold created as his answer came from a combination of the very real misogyny that is the weft of our social fabric piled high upon a stolen female narrative! Thus, from this imperfect cloth, the idea of the "Transgenderist" was born! Arnold had created a real world version of the transvestite being "forced" to play dress up the rest of his life... I mean it worked for him didn't it? He HAD to dress this way! Arnold HAD to because he was "trans-gender" Damn it all! Arnie would stop in a heart beat if he but could! Honest! He would! Besides, wasn't it his right as a man to say what is what in his world, and why should only were those damned transsexuals, the living embodiment of all of his fantasy of a man becoming a woman, get to be socially accepted as women and more so, "having had to do this" when he didn't! So from a small man with a little propaganda and a lot of hubris... He took that core concept of transsexual unto himself just so he too "must, in his long suffering, do this!"

And so it goes... the more things change the more they stay the same and so now, just as it was forty years ago. This is still a mans world. A world where the men are men, and the women, whether of a transsexual history or otherwise. Well if they know whats good for em... They will keep to their place and let the menfolk decided what is right or not! After all... He is a man, he has to!



5 comments:

  1. Just a quick not on your historical argument...

    Prince first used the term "transgenderist" in 1978. The term was in wide use (in non-Prince trans publications) as early as 1975. Prince used "transgenderal" in December of 1969. Prince used both of these terms to reference "Type 5 True Transsexuals" on the Harry Benjamin Scale that was popularized in 1966. The term transgender was being used to describe surgical transsexuals as early as 1965.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Love how "Johnnie Come Lately's" insist upon rewriting the history to benefit themselves! While I have no intent upon giving away my actual age, I will say that unlike you I not only met VP but much to my chagrin found myself in a situation where I would endure three full days of him trying to convert me!

    During that time I not only got the full history of Arnold Loman, aka Charles Virginia Prince but of the creation of "transgender, it's full meaning and intent and it's evolution... So no, Sorry Charlie, but it still stands... VP coined the term!

    btw He detested yet coveted transsexuals and would do anything possible to discredit them in his anger towards them! Also it seems you have forgotten (ignored?) how pivotal he was to the transvestite community and that he used every, and I do mean EVERY opportunity possible to preach his dogma and that his influence extended back to the 1950's! If there was an article written or talk given or scholar researching.. VP had his fingers in the pie!

    So prattle on to someone else cause you honey, are full of beans!

    ReplyDelete
  3. This talk of "stolen narrative", whilst otherwise a site of emancipation, is negative for you by virtue of your will to distance yourself from it. What is left, disregarding the explicitly deluded sexually motivated and the credulously presupposed authenticity of those who transition "earlier", and your left with gender as a style of self-identification which is something that is not self evident, malleable, multi-faceted and ultimately pragmatic. Even a gendered self-identification rooted in even sexual fetishism can psychologically become a life and death struggle parallel to the often romanticized innateness of transsexual phenomenological incongruence.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Artificial intellect presented through the use of a pseudo-intellectual and professional sounding vocabulary is unlikely to impress in these parts especially since the intent of the author is obfuscation rather than any clear intent to contribute to any useful discourse.

    In other words, peddle your crap elsewhere mister, no-one here is buying what your selling.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Obfuscation? No. If there is something you disagree with please do elaborate.

    ReplyDelete