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

[Damien Everett <damien.everett@rmit.edu.au>]

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.

erik:
>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,
Damien