From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Re: _The Story of O_  as feminist literature.
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 02:43:30 GMT

From article <1992Sep11.180011.17209@news.eng.convex.com>, by cash@convex.com (Peter Cash):
> 
> By the way, it's not at all apparent to me that the author didn't mean O to
> be _seen_ as extreme. Are you sure _you_ didn't miss the point? My reaction
> to this book is that the author wished to point out where sadism leads--to
> the ultimate destruction of the individual. But then perhaps that doesn't
> come up under the "Bad" heading on your list.

  Although it is not known who the REAL author of this book is, it is
thought that it was a woman.  In any event, it doesn't really matter
because I think a particularly interesting analysis of this text may
reveal the book to be anti-male.(BTW, IS there an english word like
misogyny applicable to the male sex?)  The single paragraph that 
stuck out in my mind throughout the text was one that went something
like this.  (*WARNING SOME READERS MAY FIND THIS OFFENSIVE--BUT IN
THE SPIRIT OF ACADEMIC PURSUITS IT IS BEING WRITTEN ANYWAY--IF YOU
DON'T LIKE SEXUALLY EXPLICIT STUFF, DO NO READ THE FOLLOWING*)

  One of the men is speaking to O and he says:  (BTW, I don't have
my copy of O at my disposal so this is comming from memory.  The
paragraph happens early in the text after O is sent to this
Chateau for sex training.)

   We will be wearing garments that leave our penises available out
in the open.  This is done less for convenience of accesibility which, in
any case, is simple enough to lower our pants, etc.  But, rather, to
remind you at all times who is your master.

  If we take the symbol of the phalic to represent the "male sex" 
then it is a clear statement of existing male dominance.  Perhaps,
in this way, _The Story of O_ is a story about male love and its
controlling, dominating aspects.  (I am, of course, not making 
any claims to the truth or falsity of this notion of "Male love"
but am rather refering to a possible interprestation of this text.)
IN this sense, I could agree that this might be meant to be extreme
to get attention.    If the entire text is read from the aspect of
this one paragraph we see that a whole lot more is going on here
than the simple ethical outcome of bondage and its destruction.  In 
this way, it actually states the outcome of a dominating and controlling
love.
  Further, what this brings to light are two kinds of love being expressed
in this book:  1.) the active (represented by the "men" of the text), and,
2.) the passive (represented by O).  If this is graft upon a theological
system, the temptation to categorize it as mystical is clear--although
I disagree with this categorization as has already been said.  In any
event, we find that O does go through some form of transformation mentally
that enables her to disregard her body and its associated pleasures in
favor of the "giving" elements of love.  This text, in effect, deconstructs
a traditional "give/take" bipolar understanding of love.  The outcome
of this bipolar love, of course, is as it was written in the text--and
it is not pretty.
  Thus, I do not find it surprising that "ethics" or "morality" has
come to the fore on this discussion and "love" has been swept under
the rug.  I found in reviewing the many elements of this chain that
"ethics" has become of great concern although I originally pointed
this text out for its definition of love.  So, am I to assume, then,
that the general understanding of "love" by posters in this forum
is one that is grounded in an ethics or a morality?
  In addition, it would seem that a lot of feminist literature has
attacked "male love" on this "give/take" structure claiming that this
is purely a fabrication of love and is implemented in a system of
ethics.  Do we, in deed, find this to be the case?
  Does this text deconstruct similiar understandings of love on religious
grounds?  And if it does, should these religions be considered
phallo-centric?   Is "Phallo-centrism" a bad thing?
  Although I agree with you that the book points out a particular
problematic with "sado-masochism," I think you will find that this
text really makes a comparison of this activity to the traditional
understanding of love.  If this be the case, is "love" subject 
to revision?  (Because we have misunderstood it, or because it is
a defucnt failed theory, etc?)

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III  Account at Oklahoma State University for summer.
Graduate Student in Religious Studies           onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu
University of Chicago
 
"N'y pensez pas, n'y pensez pas, n'y pensez pas trop"
------------------------------------------------------------------------



> -- 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>              |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
> Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta