|
From: Dagmawi
Seb-seb, I had been informed by the editors that we were to be limited to five submissions, and that you were to have the privilege of closing the exchange. That explains the conciliatory and diplomatic tone of my last correspondence. However, after having read some of the contrived opinions in your last piece, I had to respond with just one last volley. Although you keep insisting quite vociferously that you have understood the figurative point of my last anecdote, you continuously illustrate with your references that you have not. The point being made, yet again, is not about the deflowering of an azmari, but about the potential ways of deflecting a confrontational/baiting situation. The issue, furthermore, had nothing to do with male insecurities about virility (or female insecurities about sensuality) --- that is a messier subject that is definitely best left for another Seleda issue. I tire of the topic, however, and therefore have hopefully said the last word. I was quite perplexed that you would have the "moxie" to call me an "afegfagi". This from a person, by her own admission, who swings from the "Ralph Reed" far right of the spectrum to the "bed-wetting liberal" far left based on the whims of the season or the quixotic legislative agenda? That is the height of hypocrisy, and I had assumed (from our brief exchanges) that you were an individual of more conviction. While I agree that sticking to one side of the spectrum or the other may prove difficult due to the self-serving nature of the politicians setting the agenda, I find your vicissitude to be quite contrary to the persona that you have created in the past few weeks. Physician, heal thyself!! Even more incredulous were your thoughts on male/female circumcision. Yet again, I must say my dear Seb, you missed the boat. I fully admit that the act of female circumcision (ok, let's call it mutilation since that is what it really is) is quite different in technique and severity than male circumcision. The point, which you totally missed, is that an argument could be made that male circumcision is also a totally useless, culturally reinforced/sustained practice which should be eradicated. The fact that most male circumcisions happen during infancy, in somewhat sterile environments, and do not entail the same level of unnecessary disfigurement obviously would render them to lower levels of urgency than their female counterparts. Regardless, the point to be made is that the practice is arguably unnecessary and a relic of past cultural heritages, and under modern circumstances, should be discontinued. And yet the practice still continues.... primarily because of the cultural context associated with it. You yourself mention the fact that female family members were implicated in the barbaric act alongside their male counterparts. The fact that they are right there, participating and screaming obscenities at the writhing young girls, speaks volumes to me --- it confirms my thesis that there is an issue of cultural relativity which has to be understood and addressed before any progress can be made in eradicating this horrible practice. In deference to your own lofty positioning on that pedestal of worldly virtue/concern, the question I am asking is less "How does it affect me?" and more "How does it look from their perspective?" (Right, wrong, or indifferent) I am glad to hear that you at least have no questions about the source of your oral fixation. I attribute mine to having been weaned off of my dear mother's teat at too early an age --- I am in constant conflict, searching for that care-free, embryonic/cocoon feeling of security which I seemed to have only found whilst embracing a woman. As the man once said, "All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening". (Incidentally, with regards to fellatio, I assume that laws which consider the act illegal only pertain to the performance of the act, and not the receipt of it. In which case, I would assume that I would not be a fellow fellatio felon, but a prurient penile participant.) The only reason I added a disclaimer re: comments being for the express use of entertainment were more to ensure that I had not offended you/readers with some of the more frank statements that had been made during the course of this correspondence. Your overly generalizing statement about Ethiopians adding caveats to any of our expressions also was a bit ---- over-generalized and condescending. I have never made any apologies for my thoughts and opinions, and I definitely see no reason whatsoever to change that stance this late in the juncture. I had believed that this was being written mostly for entertainment purposes. Whether or not that belief still holds, I stand by my comments. Finally, the reason we are coming to the end of this exchange has less to do with coitus interruptus, and more to do with the fact that if we go much longer, we will both end up with chafed organs. Although there are probably a million other issues to be dissected, they will have to wait until another time. Pleasure delayed is pleasure prolonged, no?? Flirting to my heart's content, I remain Dagmawi PS: I did not mean to sound trite (or condescending) when I referred to you as a "pen pal". It was actually a compliment. As I mentioned in one of my earlier messages, I used to be practitioner of the dying art of letter writing, and this has been the closest I have come to engaging in it in years. So much for that...... D From: Seble
Dagiye… Uuuu! Uuuu! Uuuu! Man, when you bite on a girl's bait you REALLY bite! Your teeth marks… so sunk deep in my flesh. Ouccchhh! I will cease on my "moxie" to include myself in the people you apologized to in an earlier entry… "I will be the first to say that if I have ever (advertently or inadvertently) clipped/scratched/bitten any individual and caused irreparable harm, I apologize from the bottom of my generous heart." I'll take comfort I may have devoured you, and that you may have tamed me. Give me a kiss to build a dream on Dag--- what I would not give to have heard Louis sing those words live. Although you are not the first man I have managed to flummox and perplex all in the same breath (did I vex you, too? I vex occasionally), I want to give you assurances that I got your point about the azmari story. But, how come you didn't handle my bait with the same finesse you did Miss Wannabe-Dis-Verged-by-Dagmawi? I was looking forward to your skilful dodging of my arrows while aiming some of your own at, shall we say, key parts of my body. Oh, well. Me and my contrived opinions. Which reminds me, I suppose I owe an apology to my accountant, whom I conscientiously hound come tax season. No matter how many loopholes he finds me… histrionics. But then, the good old boys want to arm everyone, hate the gov'ment and love legislating fellatio, and I am like eeesssh. Hmm. I still wouldn't exactly estimate my politics as the "height of hypocrisy", but who can prove you wrong? The point was… "sintun wedo"? Get it? I wanted you to have the last word on the whole female genital mutilation issue, but as "incredulous" as my point seems, qibiTbiT yaregeNal. So, here goes. The reason I mentioned the matrons who sustain this barbarism is because I did not want to dichotomize the argument-- men being for, women against. As you pointed out, I am not a dualist. I hope you got that point. The issue is as complex as the solution is simple. (Back to AOL 6.0.) The "cultural context" card is always a trump card. It is hard to argue against it, let alone win against it. (Someone says "ke qdm ayatochachin siwerd siwared" and that's the end. The argument stagnates right there. End of story.) So, what I suggest is that we de"cultural contextualize" this issue. That, if we all actually *personally* witness how much blood it takes, how chilling the screams are, and the way FGM breaks a little girl's spirit, we can deem "the issue of cultural relatively" a non-issue. A posteriori versus a priori knowledge. I am not advocating cultural nihilism. Just tempering it. Besides, don't you believe in transmigration of souls? What if you come back as, er, that part of the female anatomy? (Pythagoras would then conclude that you would fall in love with yourself.) You asked, "How does it look from their perspective?" "Their" as in the practitioners or "their" as in the girls? So, how does one pilot back this sermon on teleological ethics back to fellatio *without* wrestling with your persistent (petulant?) brainchild about male circumcision? That's a bait I ain't biting! Not that I have done extensive research on this or nothin', but in States which still have anti-fellatio laws, you would also be found culpable, my prurient penile participant. What, you can't give as well as you take? The rawness of your explanation for your oral fixation had me wilting. The way you wrote it, the unsullied furor and meaning in it left me gasping. I read your words again and again, and each time they whispered volumes. I'm not sure I know too many men who could quite express it the way you did. I've been thinking a lot about the art of letter writing, Dag. I tried to remember the last time I wrote one was, and I think I drifted back to the 80's. How did that happen? It is such a personal and cathartic way to set life's pace, and we have collectively run that art into the ground. I never thought about it until you mentioned it. And, in retrospect, I am honored that you rendered me your pen pal. I see now that it is an honor. I heard that Jack Kerouac's girlfriend, the one he was dating while penning "On the Road", just published a book of their love letters. I know one is supposed to know a writer through his work, but can you imagine being privy to his thoughts AND thought *process*? Letter writing might just be the other window to our souls. Why do we kill so much art, Daggie? Ars longa, vita brevis (Art is long, life is short). After we die, will our great grandchildren decipher our thoughts through the trail of pithy emails we've left behind…? Maybe after you finish reading "The Evil Men Do" and contemplated the philosophical validation of sexual asphyxiation, (make one up if you have to, and I will take your word), you can pick up a copy. I'll get you the title. Gosh, I wish we had time to discuss the "messier" (I am assuming you meant that figuratively) subject of male insecurities about virility and female insecurities with sensuality. Now there is bait I could sink my teeth and nails in. (No, I have not read "The Evil Men Do" either! Yet.) Man, could I willingly suffer through THAT dialogue! Vicissitude or no vicissitude, I would be straddling both sides of that argument! On loftier matters, I've also been thinking about the Island. Abiy and Gilligan notwithstanding, I wonder if I would be substituting a new addiction for the old? Can one get addicted to AOL 6.0? And is that necessarily a predicament? Dag, only I can complicate the AOL 6.0 state of mind. Chafed organs aside, I enjoyed this exchange immensely. OK. I also enjoyed the process of *getting* the chafed organs. I'll see you on the Island. It might just be the last embryonic cocoon for all of us in mental and physical exile who have spent a lifetime seeking it. Cordially, _seble. |
|
|
|
|
|
| © Copyright SELEDA Ethiopia, June 2001. All Rights Reserved. |