The Journal of Mundane Behavior hits another nerve. The current issue is about mundane sex:
Why might “mundane sex” be perceived as funny? If I said, “mundane eating” or “mundane sleeping” no one would chuckle. Eating, sleeping, and sex are routine, ordinary dimensions of our lives. The laughter may betray a certain discomfort that many of us feel about public discussions of sex particularly when one’s sex life could be interpreted as ordinary, routine, or worse, boring. Nonetheless, mundane sex speaks to the “truth” of our everyday experiences. Some of us are too tired to have sex or we go through the motions. The novelty and lust have been replaced by: “Can we do it before 10 pm?” Do I have to take my socks off?” “Can I just lay here while you do the work?”
The introduction makes the somewhat bold claim that perhaps the male orgasm is irrelevant, and then the articles plumb the depths of pressing issues such as Clarissa Smith’s ‘They’re ordinary people, not Aliens from the Planet Sex!’: the mundane excitements of pornography for women. I’ll limit myself to one more excerpt. Someone’s got to keep up on this stuff since Wood s lot is on vacation!
Jane has no problem with explicitness, as such, so long as it is not ‘silly, dirty and childish’. Certainly this could be taken as evidence that she invests heavily in the notion of women’s sexuality being ‘cleaner’ and more ‘sensitive’ than men’s, of women’s sexuality embodied in a romantic ideal. However, Jane wants more than that:
I think what shouldn’t be banned is male erections, why can’t we see hard ons? I don’t think there’s any reason why we shouldn’t see hard ons – what are we all gonna do? Faint? Oh my god, there’s a big dick and it’s hard! That’s ridiculous, I think that should not be banned.
Sounds reasonable to me.
