RSS

Monthly Archives: March 2010

More Bad Sex Writing

My apologies for being a few months late with this entry. You may recall that I posted the first item in this series about 15 months ago. To refresh your memories, I’ll note that The Literary Review rewards one author per year for writing an extraordinarily awful passage about sex. Since the winner is selected near the end of the calendar year, this post will focus on the winner and runners-up for the 2009 award.

I’ll begin by citing some of the runners-up. Hmm. The first observation I’ll make is that most of these passages are significantly longer than those that made the cut the previous year (2008). Be that as it may, I will go forward, as promised.

Rhyming Life and Death by Amos Oz (Chatto & Windus)

She holds him tight and squeezes her body to his, sending delightful sailing boats tacking to and fro across the ocean of his back. With her fingertips she sends foam-flecked waves scurrying over his skin…

Almost in an instant his desire rises to a level where the pressure to reach a climax stalls and gives way to a sort of sensitive physical alertness, pleased with its own sexual generosity, that gets a kick out of giving her thrill after thrill and postponing his own satisfaction, feeling to see how he can give her more and more pleasure, until she cannot take any more. And so, in complete self-denial – in every sense – with his fingers, now experienced and even inspired, he starts to steer her enjoyment like a ship towards its home port, to the deepest anchorage, right to the core of her pleasure.

Attentive to the very faintest of signals, like some piece of sonar equipment that can detect sounds in the deep imperceptible to the human ear, he registers the flow of tiny moans that rise from inside her as he continues to excite her, receiving and unconsciously classifying the fine nuances that differentiate one moan from another, in his skin rather than in his ears he feels the minute variations in her breathing, he feels the ripples in her skin, as though he has been transformed into a delicate seismograph that intercepts and instantly deciphers her body’s reactions, translating what he has discovered into skilful, precise navigation, anticipating and cautiously avoiding every sandbank, steering clear of each underwater reef, smoothing any roughness except that slow roughness that comes and goes and comes and turns and goes and comes and strokes and goes and makes her whole body quiver. Meanwhile her moaning has turned into little sobs and sighs and cries of surprise, and suddenly his lips tell him that her cheeks are covered in tears. Every sound, every breath or shudder, every wave passing over her skin, helps his fingers on their artful way to steer her home.

And the higher the waves of her pleasure, the more his own pride swells, and the more he enjoys postponing his own satisfaction, delaying it until her stifled sobs are all released – until the rising flood sweeps her like a paper boat over the rapids. (Despite his noble aspirations, and for all his devotion to duty, from time to time he does snatch a hasty earnest of pleasures to come by rubbing his tense body along her thigh with a friction that slakes and yet sharpens his lust – before focusing once more on his precise and self-imposed steering.)

Like a musician now, totally absorbed in the movement of his fingertips over the keys, he no longer recalls how just a few hours earlier he found this shy squirrel pleasant and almost pretty but not attractive. His hands are drawn to discover her breasts, the breasts of a twelve-year-old girl, under her night dress, and this time she does not stop him, immersed as she is in her own pleasure; and when he cups them in his hands he is filled with compassion and desire and brings his tongue to her nipples and takes each nipple in turn between his lips, delicately courting them with his tongue, while his fingers play on her labia and the secret petals around a bud so full and firm it almost resembles a third nipple. His lips and tongue follow his fingers’ lead. And she, like a baby, suddenly thrusts her thumb into her mouth and begins sucking on it loudly, until her back suddenly arches like a stretched bow, and a moment later, when she has sunk back onto the mattress, a long, soft cry bursts as though from the bottom of the sea, expressing not only pleasure but astonishment, as though it were the first time in her life she had reached that landing stage, as if even in her wildest dreams she never imagined what was waiting for her here.

It’s a shame that English teachers in American high schools will never be able to use that passage to illustrate the sin of mixed metaphors; they’d be hard-pressed to find another passage that would do the task as well. The sailing metaphor reminded me of a joke the deacon used to tell our preacher friends years ago:

One Saturday evening, as the preacher prepared his sermon for the next morning, his wife asked him what the sermon topic would be.

“Sailing,” he answered.

Surprised by his answer, she nevertheless held her tongue and continued with her evening chores.

On Sunday morning, the preacher looked out at his congregation and saw a sea of teenagers, more than he had seen in a long time. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, he decided, at the last moment, to change his sermon topic and preach about sex.

After the service, parents streamed downstairs to the church nursery to pick up their little ones who had been in the care of the preacher’s wife throughout the service. As they exited with their children, several of them made complimentary remarks about the wonderful sermon her husband had preached that morning. The pastor’s wife accepted the compliments graciously, but grew increasingly bewildered as the number of compliments grew. Finally, when one mother told her that her husband had preached like “he really knew what he was talking about,” the poor wife blurted:

“I’m really surprised. He’s only done it twice, and both times he fell off.”

I digress. To return to the matter at hand, let’s look at another passage – one of the short ones:

A Dead Hand by Paul Theroux (Hamish Hamilton)

‘Baby.’ She took my head in both hands and guided it downward, between her fragrant thighs. ‘Yoni puja – pray, pray at my portal.’

She was holding my head, murmuring ‘Pray,’ and I did so, beseeching her with my mouth and tongue, my licking a primitive form of language in a simple prayer. It had always worked before, a language she had taught me herself, the warm muffled tongue.

I don’t know about you, but prayer as a metaphor for cunnilingus does not inspire me at all. That was one of two passages from Theroux’s book that the reviewers recognized. Nick Cave did Theroux one better and had three passages from his book, The Death of Bunny Munroe, considered by the committee. Here’s a notable extract:

He puts his hands under her knees and manoeuvres her carefully so that her bottom rests on the edge of the settee. He slips his fingers underneath the worn elastic of her panties that are strung across the points of her hips, slips them to her ankles and softly draws apart her knees and feels again a watery ardour in his eyes as he negotiates a button and a zipper. It is exactly as he imagined it – the hair, the lips, the hole – and he slips his hands under her wasted buttocks and enters her like a fucking pile driver.

A fucking pile driver. That sounds more like an excerpt from Penthouse Letters than the work of a polished novelist.

Ten Storey Love Song by Richard Milward (Faber & Faber)

Let’s have sex, they think simultaneously, couples having strange mind-reading powers after months and months of trying to figure each other out. Panting, Georgie starts rubbing her hands round Bobby’s biological erogenous zones, turning his trousers into a tent with lots of rude organs camping underneath. Bobby sucks all the freckles and moles off her chest, pulling the GD bib wheeeeeeeeeee over her head and flicking Georgie’s turquoise bra off her shoulders then kissing her tits, and he’s got so much energy – plus he’s very impatient – Bobby tugs off his sweaty sweater himself and gives Georgie a helping hand with his zip. Then comes the enormous anticipation of someone putting their mitts on your cock and balls. Georgie smiles to herself and keeps him hanging on for a bit, which in a way is even better though it makes the Artist want to explode and after one or two tugs he moans ‘whoah’ then screams ‘whoah!’ and Georgie lets go giggling, then suddenly her face is all serious and Bobby pulls her polished pine legs apart and slithers a hand up her skirt where her fanny’s got a bit of five o’clock shadow like a pin cushion but her lips are nice and slippy, and he slides some lubricunt round and round, mixing clockwise with anticlockwise with figure 8 until Georgie’s shagging the air with pleasure bashing her feet about. Then, Bobby starts scrabbling frantically across the carpet for Mr Condom, sending five or six multicolour Durexes flying through the air, and he struggles getting the packet open and Georgie has to roll Mr Condom down Mr Penis for him and she has to help insert him into Mrs Vagina. They shag at double-speed…. Meanwhile, down in Vaginaland, Mr Condom’s beginning to feel a bit iffy. He’s overheating. For some reason, the shagging seems to be twice as fast this evening, and he grimaces as he gets flung willy-nilly in and out of the pink tunnel. He starts getting friction burns, hanging onto Bobby’s stiff penis for dear life, headbutting Georgie’s cervix at 180 beats per minute. ‘Help me!’ he yells in the darkness, feeling himself melting. The sex only seems to be getting faster though, and Mr Condom squeezes his eyes shut as Bobby groans and the friction starts getting unbearable and Mr Condom thinks he’s going to be sick and the searing pain the searing pain and Bobby groans again and suddenly squirts a gallon of white molten lava from his Jap’s eye, exploding through Mr Condom’s heavy reservoir end and Mr Condom screams and screams and vomits ice cream into Georgie’s vagina. Shivering and spasming, Bobby suddenly feels the endorphins kick in and he falls onto the carpet with a happy bump.

Well. That’s the first (and last) time I’ve read about sex from the perspective of a rubber named Mr. Condom who finds sex nauseating. Remember, that passage was not the winner. I can’t wait to see what’s in store for us with the winning passage. Give heed to Jonathan Littel’s award-winning passage from The Kindly Ones:

Her vulva was opposite my face. The small lips protruded slightly from the pale, domed flesh. This sex was watching at me, spying on me, like a Gorgon’s head, like a motionless Cyclops whose single eye never blinks. Little by little this silent gaze penetrated me to the marrow. My breath sped up and I stretched out my hand to hide it: I no longer saw it, but it still saw me and stripped me bare (whereas I was already naked). If only I could still get hard, I thought, I could use my prick like a stake hardened in the fire, and blind this Polyphemus who made me Nobody. But my cock remained inert, I seemed turned to stone. I stretched out my arm and buried my middle finger into this boundless eye. The hips moved slightly, but that was all. Far from piercing it, I had on the contrary opened it wide, freeing the gaze of the eye still hiding behind it. Then I had an idea: I took out my finger and, dragging myself forward on my forearms, I pushed my forehead against this vulva, pressing my scar against the hole. Now I was the one looking inside, searching the depths of this body with my radiant third eye, as her own single eye irradiated me and we blinded each other mutually: without moving, I came in an immense splash of white light, as she cried out: ‘What are you doing, what are you doing?’ and I laughed out loud, sperm still gushing in huge spurts from my penis, jubilant, I bit deep into her vulva to swallow it whole, and my eyes finally opened, cleared, and saw everything.

I’ve never been impressed with the one-eyed monster metaphor for a penis and that passage did nothing to change my mind. In my opinion, Cyclops stole the award from the more deserving Mr. Condom. Of course, being a mere practitioner of sex rather than a literary expert, my opinion doesn’t count for much.

And there you have it – the winner and some of the runners-up from the 2009 Bad Sex Writing awards. Stay tuned for the 2010 edition, which will be published later this year.

the chaplain

 
16 Comments

Posted by on March 27, 2010 in literature, sex, society

 

Signs & Countersigns

* I saw the text of #1 on a church lawn last weekend.
* A Tea Partier Bagger displayed sign #3 during a protest against Health Care Reform.
* Do you have a response to any of these signs?
* Have you seen any interesting signs lately?

– the chaplain

 
14 Comments

Posted by on March 24, 2010 in atheism, humor, politics, religion

 

Jesus Is My Boyfriend Redux

Last year I wrote a post entitled, The Boyfriend, in which I discussed the phenomenon that critics both inside and outside of the church sometimes call Jesus Is My Boyfriend music. That post featured examples of Christian songs that refer to God and/or Jesus in rather intimate terms. In this post, I’m going to address the practice of co-opting secular love songs and addressing them to Jesus.

My first conscious, deliberate and willing engagement in this practice occurred when I was 17 years old. The summer I was 17 was one of three that I spent traveling with an evangelistic team (I’m embarrassed to admit that we had hugely inflated egos about our talent level). Our group’s leader suggested that our lead singer should sing Carole King’s gorgeous song, “You Light Up My Life” (from her Fantasy album). Since the song in its original key was pitched too low for our singer, I stayed up until 4:00 a.m. and wrote an arrangement suited to her range. Naturally, it featured a fun piano part for me to play. If you’re not familiar with the song, here are the lyrics:

You light up my life like sunrise in the morning;
You make me believe anything is possible.
I didn’t have a dream to my name,
Darkness was mine, it was such a shame,
But you came to light up my life,
You brought me faith and hope and love and light.

With your tender smile you brought me to the promise
Of life outside a world of 9-to-5 and Sunday.
I didn’t know how rich I could be
Until you gave your love to me.
Don’t you see, you light up my life,
You give me faith and hope and love and light.

You brought your sweet understanding
Like sun rays in my hazy skies.
If you hadn’t opened up my eyes
Love would have passed me by, right on by.

I never knew how good I could feel,
Loving you’s left me with nothing to conceal.
Yeah – you really light up my life,
You give me faith and hope and love and light.

If you’d like to hear Carole King sing it, sit back and listen:

Fast forward a few years. Since I’m part of a worship band at a weekend youth retreat, I spend much of Saturday jamming and rehearsing with the other band members. The leader, a big guy about 6’4″ who weighs at least 300 pounds, decides that the song before the sermon will be, “You Are So Beautiful,” his love song to Jesus. Instead of singing, though (which he does quite well), he’s going to play his trombone (which he does very well – he played trombone in a symphony orchestra before becoming a minister); his friend Marty is going to play the piano, and I’m going to provide a string bass line on my synthesizer. We don’t have an arrangement to work with; we just find a key to play in and follow the leader. Jump ahead to Sunday morning. Marty wakes up with a nauseating migraine and Bruce comes to me a few minutes before the service, saying, “Marty can’t make it today. I need you to play the piano for ‘You Are So Beautiful.’” So, I improvised an accompaniment while Bruce serenaded Jesus.

To complete the intended effect, picture Jesus sitting across from you in a candlelit room as you sing these words:

You are so beautiful to me.
You are so beautiful to me.
Can’t you see?
You’re everything I hoped for,
You’re everything I need.
You are so beautiful to me

Such joy and happiness you bring.
Such joy and happiness you bring.
Like a dream,
A guiding light that shines in the night,
Heaven’s gift to me.
You are so beautiful to me.

Now, watch and listen as Joe Cocker sings the song to you:

The final song that I’ll feature is not one that I’ve ever sung or played to Jesus, but it’s one that’s readily adapted to the Jesus Is My Boyfriend genre: “Have I Told You Lately,” by Rod Stewart. Can you see yourself singing this to Jesus? Some people can.

Have I told you lately that I love you?
Have I told you there’s no one else above you?
You fill my heart with gladness, take away all my sadness,
Ease my troubles, that’s what you do.

For the morning sun and all its glory
Meets the day with hope and comfort too.
You fill my life with laughter, somehow you make it better,
Ease my troubles, that’s what you do.

There’s a love that’s divine,
And it’s yours and it’s mine like the sun.
And at the end of the day
We should give thanks and pray to the one, to the one.

Have I told you lately that I love you?
Have I told you there’s no one else above you?
You fill my heart with gladness, take away all my sadness,
Ease my troubles, that’s what you do.

Now, let Rod woo you:

I think I’ve covered all the bases in the Jesus is My Boyfriend genre

a) songs written by Christians to, or about, Jesus, and
b) secular love songs co-opted by Christians and dedicated to their friend, savior, lord and lover.

If I’ve missed any possibilities, let me know. In the meantime, I’ll issue this warning: if you write a really nice love song, the odds are pretty high that some Christian will pick it up and sing it to Jesus.

– the chaplain

 
49 Comments

Posted by on March 17, 2010 in humor, music, rationalism, religion

 

Humanist Symposium # 51

Head over to wongablog and check out the latest edition of the Humanist Symposium.

– the chaplain

 
1 Comment

Posted by on March 16, 2010 in announcements/news

 

Monday Madness: Faith-Based Discrimination

A little over a week ago (March 7, to be precise), I wrote a post about a policy that the Washington DC branch of Catholic Charities implemented earlier this month. Then, just a few days ago (March 11, to refresh our memories), I posted excerpts (and a bit of commentary) from the president’s advisory council’s report on Faith-Based charities. This post ties together the subjects of both of those posts. I’ll start with the Catholic Charities connection.

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State posted a story today about a new practice that Catholic Charities (Washington, DC office) implemented immediately after announcing a major change to its health insurance benefit. In addition to being unable to add spouses to their health insurance plans, new employees at Catholic Charities (which receives about $22 million per year in government funds) are now required to sign a statement promising that they “will not ‘violate the principles or tenets’ of the church.”

According to a spokesperson for Catholic Charities,

“the new language ‘is more of an expectation than a condition. It’s letting people know this is the culture.’ Asked if that meant employees could speak or act against the church without being fired, Salmi said: ‘We can’t speculate on the hypothetical. It’s handled on a case-by-case basis.’”

A former vice president at Catholic Charities disagrees with this spin. According to him, “Putting it in a letter and requiring a signature, that’s a condition of employment. There’s no way to dance around that….”

Not having seen the actual statement myself, I can only report what others have said about it. According to Americans United,

It’s a sweeping statement – one that would allow Catholic Charities to dismiss employees for virtually any infraction of church rules, from failure to attend religious services and using artificial contraceptives to cohabitation and publicly criticizing church leaders.

While the better optimistic side of my nature hopes that the statement wouldn’t be used against employees in such a draconian manner, the reality-based side of me knows that it could happen. I don’t say this as a cynic, skeptic or anti-theist; I say it because I work in human resources and I know first-hand how even seemingly innocuous statements can be used against employees.

At this point, I’ll say that I don’t care who religious organizations hire to perform tasks related to their religious functions. It’s a no-brainer that churches should be able to hire Christian education directors, music ministers and the like who agree with and uphold the tenets of their faith. Moreover, the salaries of people holding such positions are usually paid for by funds the churches and organizations raise through their own efforts, with no infusion of government funds. But, religious organizations that want to serve their communities through social service programs – and who accept funds from any government bodies to fulfill those particular commitments – should be required to adhere to the same hiring standards as anyone else when filling positions related to those programs. The next story provides an excellent example of what I mean.

A religious agency called World Relief, which got its start feeding and clothing people during World War II, refused to hire a Muslim man because he is not a Christian. World Relief is prohibited from proselytizing recipients of its services, but can discriminate on the basis of religion in its hiring practices. Fluent in both Arabic and English, Saad Mohammad Ali applied for a position as a caseworker whose primary task would have been helping Iraqi refugees re-settle in the United States. Ali, who came to the USA as an Iraqi refugee two years ago and served as a volunteer with World Relief, was probably as good a candidate for the position as anyone. There is no good reason why a Muslim, Arabic-speaking person familiar with both World Relief and Iraqi culture could not fill the position of World Relief’s caseworker to Arabic-speaking Iraqis. There are many lousy reasons, but no good ones. Here’s the kicker: this organization that prefers employing Christians rather than people of other backgrounds who are qualified to deliver its services receives 70% of its funds from government sources. Think about that as you consider this little gem, courtesy of a World Relief spokesperson:

“At times we feel a lot of hopelessness so we spend a lot of time in prayer,” she said. “So and so can’t get a job, we can’t find them one and we ask God to lift things up in prayer.”

Wonderful. That’s the kind of practical re-settlement service our tax dollars are paying for. If World Relief were entirely self-funded, I wouldn’t give a damn who they hired and why. But, they are far from self-funded and I resent like hell that any of my tax money is paying for them to fill their payroll with drones who believe that prayer is a useful strategy for helping people find work.

The Washington Post reminds us that

As a candidate, President Obama sided with those opposing such hiring limits and vowed to stop them. But since Obama took office, the issue has remained under study by the Justice Department.

Since I don’t expect the Obama administration to stop studying this matter and start addressing it any time soon, I think I’ll go ahead and print that 176-page report the president’s advisory council gave him last week. I figure all those pages are equivalent to approximately one roll of toilet paper.

– the chaplain

 
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 97 other followers