Re: [-empyre-] [empyre] producers and consumers

erik mentions:
>the problem with the word "cunt"
and with women identifying themselves with it is that it plays directly
into the segmentation of the body and the idea of a woman as an
extension of her sexual organs. Anyone who sees "cunt" as an "object of
worship" is trying too hard or simply missing the point, that to see
people as full and complete human beings, we cannot refer to people as
isolated, specific body parts.

As shakespeare says "what is in a name?". Is it possible to address people by the totality of their being? if so what do you want me to call you? Identity is contextual, we are only able to reveal one facet of our "self" at a time. The problem you refer to is when people are only able to view the cunt in one dimension: crude objectification of genitalia as a means of self gratification, and are unable to consider any other symbolic aspects it can represent.

"cunt worship" dates back to the dawn of time, synonomous with the mother goddess and the matrix of all existence and experience(as in Tantra, Yin of Taoism, the Prima Materia of alchemy, Anima Mundi as soul of the world), so perhaps you are the one missing the point in this matter. This kind of understanding allow us to go beyond the limited constraints of the (male?)ego, worship is a form of surrender into loving union with the universe which is a noble aspiration for some. For others it is as frightening as death. At any rate it is simply my own opinion on this matter... I don't expect everyone to understand it.

>It strikes me as a
profoundly absurd practice for a woman to refer to herself as a "cunt"
as a source of pride.

Yes, because you think all women should subscribe to your definition of and belief structures surrounding what a "cunt" is?

Best wishes,

This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.