| NOTE: Some postings may have been deleted at the discretion of Ben
Boxer. Erotic pictures posted on the regular version of the list are automatically
deleted from the digest and are archived separately. Viewing them requires
a password available only to members. Profiles posted to the list are
also moved into a separate viewing area, but do not require a password.
Click here to browse through
them.
In this issue:
-Quote of the Day (7)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My partner, when giving me a kiss an hour after I
ate a Japanese dinner of raw tuna sashimi:
"That must be what it's like eating pussy!"
Yuk.
What beautiful hair on your pussy, George!
(tongue firmly in cheek...)
Well, I think your pussy looks very cute George, and I'm not talking
about the feline one either
Yuk.
Well, in that case. you deserve a chance to pet it.
.......so now you're a cat rimmer George???
Ewwwwwwwwww :-)
Pewit
You can lick me all over anytime George!!!!!!!!!! hehehe
From: "Ben Boxer"
Headline:
Text:
The picture is part of a new exhibition of the work
of black photographers which opens at the
Brooklyn museum of art on Friday.
Mr Giuliani has said he will establish a committee
to look at standards of decency in publicly
subsidised institutions.
But the author of the work, Renee Cox, demanded
to know why Christ should not be depicted by a
woman, telling her critics to "get over it".
"Why can't a woman be Christ? We are the
givers of life," she said.
In "Yo Mama's last supper", Cox faces forward,
holding her arms wide open and is surrounded by
12 black apostles sitting or standing.
Another exhibit, by Willie Middlebrook, depicts a
topless woman crucified.
Mr Giuliani said that the exhibits were
"anti-Catholic", adding that he had asked city
lawyers to explore legal action against the
museum.
"If it were done against another group there
would be an outcry in this city that would demand
that they take the photograph down, but
anti-Catholicism is just accepted prejudice, it is
allowed in the city and in our society," Reuters
news agency quoted him as saying.
It is not the first time the museum has clashed with
Mr Giuliani.
Two years ago he tried unsuccessfully to remove
the museum's funding, following the display of a
picture of the Virgin Mary decorated with
elephant dung in the Sensation exhibition by
British artists.
On this occasion, a federal court judge ruled that
the city had violated the First Amendment, which
guarantees freedom of expression under the
constitution.
But Mr Giuliani is now threatening to take the
current case to the Supreme Court.
The painting is what art is supposed to do.....get people to
thinking and creat controversy......
As an artist, I want to comment on this and its reply here.
First of all, art isn't "supposed to create controversy", it CAN do that,
but it certainly isn't the main function of art. Art serves a heck of a lot
more purposes than that.
Second, where do we draw the line between art and simply doing something for
shock value? The mayor is right to a point, when he says it's accepted
prejudice.
Not that I have ANY particular love for the Catholic church (far from it)
but then, put the shoe on the other foot (any foot). For instance, would it
be art and would it be tolerated if it were depicting Klansmen at the last
supper dining on a feast of black people's disembodied heads? Or a group of
Nazi's shown before the wailing wall making lampshades out of the skin of
Jews? Would you then say that blacks or Jews had a right to be outraged by
this? You can offend certain people and get away with it and others you
can't. Why? Those of my particular faith have been depicted in a terrible
light many many times in the past but we've never been able to complain
about it. I can relate to Mayor Giuliani's thoughts on this matter. Is it
art or is it just a slap in the face? Christ wasn't a black woman, there's
no sense in asking "why couldn't Christ be a black woman", that's just
ignorant to even suggest it. It IS simply an attempt to shock, not art, not
really. As a struggling artist who takes time and effort to create things of
beauty and of quality, it often offends me to see people get fame and
recognition simply because they've done something to shock the world.
Talent, it appears, plays no role in these cases.
Obviously, there can be great artistic merit in works about
rape and murder and the humilitation of homosexuals, or
Marshall Mathers would not be up for the best-album award
from the National Academy of Recordng Arts and Sciences
(????). I suspect Sir Elton has agreed to appear with him at
the Grammys in the hope that maybe backstage after the show
he'll find out if its true about Eminems only melting in
your mouth, not in your hand. He shouldn't count on it,
though. Given Eminem's flare for degradation, the gangsta
rapper may live up to the lyrics of one of his raps in which
he rhapsodizes about putting duct tape over the mouths of
his victims. Sorry, milord! You may never know!
I hope this won't be too long, BUT, I needed to say this.
Tim here. I'm hoping to spread some openmindedness
without being too anti or every anything. No matter
how you view or describe yourself, at some point in
the course of your life, you will experience some form
of discrimination, rejection, ETC! What I'm getting at
is,,,,no matter how repulsed we can be or get at others
choice of expression, they DO have a constitutional right
to express themselves in their own way. I am not condoning
hatred lyrics, attacks on one's religious choice of beings
to worship, ideas of expression, or any other ways of self
expression. I say to each their own. I have the right NOT
to listen to "bad" music or lyrics, view questionable tv
contents, pay admission to a museum that exhibits "bad"
art works,,,,ETC!,,,,That is what CHOICE is all about!
True,,,we will never experience real freedom,,,,,,BUT!
we, as a nation DO have more liberties than most other
countries on this planet. If you want real freedom,,,find
a completely deserted island,,,claim it for your own,,,
establish yourself as the ruler,,,& YOU GOT IT!,,,,,,BUT,,
you're gonna have to protect that island from others who
want what you have!,,,FREEDOM!,,,,,,
My very significant other happens to volunteer at the
Detroit Institute of Arts when he's able, as an assistant
to help with visitors. If it wasn't for him, I never would
have experienced some of the most precious works of art
ever to be displayed to the public! I was his very personal
guest for the Van Gogh exhibit that the DIA had for
showing.
I was truly impressed!!!,,,& I have never really been a fan
of that genre of the arts! I'm more into music. He has
enjoyed my sharing of my musical interests with him as much
as I have enjoyed my newfound love of art!,,,,That's where
being openminded comes into play. Even if you don't like or
agree with someone elses' interests or tastes, that's NO
CAUSE to censor or banish them! Talent is also known as
self-expression,,,& don't forget,,,beauty is in the eye of
the beholder,,,the same way love is held in the heart!!!!,,
not in other physical regions of the body!!!!
I hope this post gets through & raises the awareness of
freedom of choices,,,ETC! If anything,,,I hope at least
one person will read this & consider,,,,,anything!!!
Thanks for y'all's time & understanding,,,,TAKE CARE &
ENJOY!!!!!
as always a listfriend,,,,,still me,,,,,tim!!! XOXO!! ;-)
I also am an artist, in New York, and I want to reply to your comment about
the Brooklyn Museum show.
a> Have you seen the two photographs (yes, they are photographs) in
question?
b> I might be upset about the examples you have given, and probably wouldn't
go to the show, but it is the right of free expression that enables us all
to create art.
I have always said that I never want to hear that my art is
"interesting." I want to hear that you loved it or hated it. Both are fine
as long as it provokes an emotion.
Having been a friend of Robert Mapplethorp I certainly enjoy a good
emotional controversy.
c> This is just another example of our pandering, self-promoting Mayor
drawing attention to a totally meaningless issue in order to avoid dealing
with meaningful issues.
I doubt he would react as strongly if "rev" Fred Phelps came to march
down Christopher Street with his "god hates fags" troops. He would just
tell the city that Phelps was within his First Amendment rights.
cu,
Well, I haven't been following this eminem thing, I don't like rap and so
I've just been ignoring the thread, so I can't find the connections you're
trying to make there. However... Yes, there can be merit in works that do
make you think and that portray things in a new and unique way. But like I
said, there is a line between art and poor taste, between making a person
think and offending people. It doesn't need to be crossed to create art. No
doubt any art or music is going to offend SOMEONE but it doesn't need to go
overboard. This particular work does that. It has no real merit as art, it
doesn't evoke any type of thought. No, Jesus could not have been a naked
black woman, IF you believe he existed then he was a man. Would it make any
sense for someone to depict Hitler as a naked black woman? And we're not
exactly talking about art here, we're talking photography. (Um, that came
out wrong)... I mean it isn't a painting or anything like that, it's a
photograph, which means that it isn't like this woman had an image and spent
months trying to portray it, she staged it and pushed a button. I admit
that's oversimplifying things. But photography certainly requires less
effort and talent than painting. (I'll get flamed for saying that, I know it
but I do both things and I speak from my own experience here). This reminds
me of the old Piss Christ exhibit, what was the point? To offend people,
that's all. But what offends me about all of it isn't that these people are
trying to tick off folks for their religious beliefs or anything like that,
it's that there are idiots out there who actually give money to these
talentless wannabe artists and real artists who work hard sit around and
wonder where their next meal is coming from. Hell, if I'd known I could make
a million bucks by pissing in a fishtank or taking a picture of something
offensive I'd have done it long ago. Difference here is, I've got something
called good taste and dignity. I also don't want to be known for something
as absurd as that. What the heck ever happened to real art anyway? Ahhhh...
sorry folks, touchy subject. :)
I also am an artist, in New York, and I want to reply to your comment
about
the Brooklyn Museum show.
Ok...
a> Have you seen the two photographs (yes, they are photographs) in
question?
Not in person (don't think that matters much though)
b> I might be upset about the examples you have given, and probably
wouldn't
go to the show, but it is the right of free expression that enables us all
to create art.
No offense, but there's nothing in the constitution about freedom of
expression. But I get your point. These people have every right in the world
to express themselves
so long as their expression doesn't offend someone else, in which case they
are violating my right to live a peaceful and happy life. Hence, like I
said, there are lines you don't cross.
I have always said that I never want to hear that my art is
"interesting." I want to hear that you loved it or hated it. Both are
fine
as long as it provokes an emotion.
I like my art to be interesting and I certanly don't want anyone to hate it.
My art is an extension of myself, my thoughts. It might make someone feel
certain emotions but I wouldn't want them to hate it, not as art. They could
hate what it represents, that's fine, but I'd not like them to hate the work
involved.
Having been a friend of Robert Mapplethorp I certainly enjoy a good
emotional controversy.
I hate to say it, but I've had more impressive looking fecal excavations
than that guy's work. I don't consider him an artist, he's an artist in the
same respect that Howard Stern is a performer/actor/etc. It doesn't take
talent to do what he does. I firmly believe that if there is no talent
involved it isn't art, it's mental masturbation and people view it not for
the art involved but for the same reason they slow down when they see a bad
accident on the highway.
c> This is just another example of our pandering, self-promoting Mayor
drawing attention to a totally meaningless issue in order to avoid dealing
with meaningful issues.
I have no opinions on your mayor one way or another. I simply agree that
this is a case of a non-artist getting attention by doing something in poor
taste to shock people. And she will make a ton of money for it too and THAT
offends the heck out of me.
I doubt he would react as strongly if "rev" Fred Phelps came to march
down Christopher Street with his "god hates fags" troops. He would just
tell the city that Phelps was within his First Amendment rights.
He's entitled to his opinion, but as above, when he expresses it to the
point where it interferes with my right to live a peaceful and happy life
then I take umbrance with it. If MR. Phelps got in my face I'd be happy to
show him the light. :>
Michael A. Smith
Who draws the line between art and poor taste? I would hope
that it would not be a consortium of artists without the
spiritual vision to see any artistic merit in photography,
especially if they have not even viewed the work in question
or perhaps are judging from a photograph of the photograph
itself. And don't come back at me and try to say you didn't
mean it. You wrote it. You thus committed yourself to its
idiocy. One of my ex-lovers was a young Japanese who was a
graduate of Wako Fine Arts University in Tokyo and exhibited
his oil paintings with great success, then took a Masters in
Photography at the San Francisco Institute of Fine Arts. I
exhibited his photographic works at a major international
exhibition in Paris. He took First Prize. The winning
photograph was a breathtakingly beautiful piece praised for
its "artistic merit." It was a photograph of flowers and
dead cockroaches floating in a toilet bowel. Taste? A true
artist can work in any medium and produce something of
artistic value, the subject matter be damned.
In the matter of Jesus, he is represented in various
cultures with the physical attributes of their own race. Do
these representations make him any less the Christ in
"Christ-ian"? Do the variations in his skin tone, physique
and hair style from the earliest times all the way through
the great masters who saw him in an infinite variety of ways
diminish his stature in the eyes of a Christian? The artist
who is responsible for "Yo Mama's Last Supper" had her own
vision, which she expressed when she said: "Why can't a
woman be Christ? We are the givers of life." I was once
associated with a religion which taught that "Christ" was a
title which can be applied to all who are "made in the image
and likeness of God" as the Bible clearly states (in the
first story of Creation) in Genesis1:27 "So God created man
in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male
and female created he them." That religion also addresses
its prayers to "Father-Mother God," synonymously, as does at
least one new translation of the Bible.
By that standard, the artist has as much right to express
her convictions in her work as has anyone else to speak of
her work as trash or an abomination -- without limiting her
freedom to do so. In "Yo Mama's Last Supper," the central
figure is surrounded by 12 BLACK apostles. There are "black
virgins" all over the Catholic world. One is paraded in a
limousine through the streets of Zapopan outside Guadlajara
in Mexico every year to the shouted prayers of thousands of
faithful. Another stands in the Basilica of the great
monastery at Montserrat in Spain where hundreds of people
attend mass to hear the angelic voices of the Boys Choir of
Montserrat and to file before a small image of the "Black
Virgin of Montserrat" and kiss its feet in search of a
miracle.
Was the "real" Virgin Mary black? Or the apostles? Does it
matter? Someone's artistic vision has made it so in the
above examples. The creator of "Yo Mary" has made it so,
with a sex change. Note that she does not entitle the work
"Yo Jesus," but "Yo Mary." The artist has a right to his or
her freedom of expression. The beholder has the right to
reject the artist's vision, but not to deny him the right to
express it.
Likewise with Eminem. I may not like his work. You may not
like his work, but millions do and have made him a rich man
for it. He is speaking to someone, and he is being heard. It
would be tasteless of me to speak seriously of his work as
trash. I didn't like Andy Warhol, either. So where does that
put me? And my opinion?
I think Lawrence makes a good point; I doubt the mayor would be too upset
if Phelps marched down Christopher Street. But, I feel for example dr.
laura should be taken off the air; because she preaches hate. But, she
has a right to say anything because of free speech; so what I can do is
try to get people not to listen to her and to get advertisers to withdraw
sponsorship. Handling this exhibit the same way would make sense: not
attending, and working to get others not to attend. I am troubled by
censorship, because once we cannot express ourselves, we are in trouble.
I think the exhibit in question would die quickly if people just ignored
it; all the controversy is just making it more interesting.
Bob and Harley
From: Digital Artistry:
No offense, but there's nothing in the constitution about freedom of
expression.
Except the first amendment
But I get your point. These people have every right in the world
to express themselves
so long as their expression doesn't offend someone else, in which case they
are violating my right to live a peaceful and happy life. Hence, like I
said, there are lines you don't cross.
Picasso, Matisse and Van Gogh offended everyone. Van Gogh sold only one of
his works while alive.
I like my art to be interesting and I certanly don't want anyone to hate
it.
My art is an extension of myself, my thoughts. It might make someone feel
certain emotions but I wouldn't want them to hate it, not as art. They
could
hate what it represents, that's fine, but I'd not like them to hate the
work
involved.
In polite society when people don't have a clue about what they are viewing
some say "it's interesting."
Personally I want an emotional response, love or hate.
the next time someone tells you they find your "interesting" ask them what
it is that they
find interesting about it and listen for the um hemming and hawing.
Having been a friend of Robert Mapplethorp I certainly enjoy a good
emotional controversy.....
I hate to say it, but I've had more impressive looking fecal excavations
than that guy's work.....
Robert's use of lights, shadows and the images that were meaningful to
him is respected by many all over the world.
To inflame those with a Christian agenda is also an important part of his
work.
...this is a case of a non-artist getting attention by doing something in poor
taste to shock people. And she will make a ton of money for it too and THAT
offends the heck out of me.
I only hope no one has the audacity to deem you a non-artist.
...if MR. Phelps got in my face I'd be happy to
show him the light. :>
No one else is in charge of your living a happy and peaceful life.
Nor should they be.
Only you can keep yourself happy and peaceful.
You must find that within yourself.
cu,
HOWDY LIST!!!,,,,& I WON'T FORGET....lj,,,,,,,
This note is mainly for you,,,,,,,,,,,,
You seem quick to attack,,,D.A.,,,,,,,,,,,lj,,,,You
state that you haven't seen the photos in question,,,,
You go on to state that there's nothing in the constitution
about self expression,,,you proceed to talk about lines
you don't want crossed,,,concerning your right to live a
happy and peaceful life,,,concerning the art in
question,,,,,,AM I RIGHT SO FAR???,,,,Please let me
know,,,,
I must question you at this point,,,,What offends
you,,,,,,when you don't even go to the museum showing the
art that is supposed to offend you??????????????????
GOD FORBID!,,,you might actually see the paintings in
question!!!,,,,,,,You want you art to only be
interesting,,,
&,,,what else???,,,you don't want anybody to hate it??!!!!
OH,,,OOOPPS!!!,,,I GOOFED!,,,YOU stated that you only want
to hear that your artworks are loved or hated,,,,,AM I
CORRECT???,,,The more you discuss you interest or dis-
interest in any art,,,,including your own,,,,has me wonder-
ing to extremes!!!,,,,Just what is your purpose in the
arts??????,,,You proceed to talk about your fecal matter!!
YUCK!!!,,,& ,,,WHY???,,,Just what are you trying to achieve
here????,,,I don't think it's friendship,,,if so,,,you have
a rather peculiar way of expressing yourself,,,,,,I hope
you
decide to read through any post you submit to any online
list that is public,,,,,,,,Just my observance,,,,
still me,,,,tim!,,,,XO!
... they DO have a constitutional right to express themselves
in their own way...I have the right NOT to listen...That is what
CHOICE is all about!...(snip)
I mentioned in a previous posting, this idea that we have some "Freedom of
expression" is running rampant, we have no such right. I'd like to know
where this
idea got started. It isn't in the constitution. You're confusing Freedom of
Speech, which is a different thing and even that doesn't give anyone the
permission to say or do anything that would offend another person.
Furthermore, you may have the right to NOT listen to or view certain things,
but when public funding is being used to support something like this, it's
certanly appropriate to say "This is not proper". That isn't censorship.
Would you approve of it if someone were to take pictures of people having
sex with dead animals and put that on public display? Where do you draw the
line between art and offensive behavior? What you view, listen to or do in
the privacy of your own home is up to you but we're talking about a public
display. It isn't right that it should offend people like that.
...Even if you don't like or agree with someone elses' interests or tastes,
that's NO CAUSE to censor or banish them!...(snip)
There's a big difference between censorship and simply having some sense of
morality. To some people the idea of right and wrong boils down to
censorship. Some folks believe that everyone has the right to do and say
whatever they want and if you try to stop them then it is censorship. That's
a silly basis for a way of thinking. Do you wish to blur the line so far
that we have no morals at all? Do you want to live in an anarchistic
society? That's where all this unchecked so called freedom of expression
leads. Why is it not "art" when someone spraypaints foul words on the side
of the public library then? It's one person's form of expression and it's a
public building, just like an art museum. Why then is it considered a crime?
Label some woman an "artist" and have her take some supposedly art photos
and she makes money and the average citizen pays for it, whether they
approve of that "art" or not. That's wrong. If we were talking about a piece
of art in a private gallery or in this person's home, that would be a
different story. Let me ask you, if you were Jewish (you may be, I don't
know), would you want to take your family to the art museum to see beautiful
art and then come face to face with an exhibit of Nazi art that shows Nazi's
in a positive light, anti-Semitic messages and all? Would you consider this
to be just someone's "Freedom of Expression(tm)(c)(r)" or would it be
offensive? Add to it the fact that your taxes go towards paying for that
exhibit as well and... No, Mayor Guiliani is right, it's offensive and has
no place being in a publicly funded museum.
I will remind you once more, I am not a Catholic, not a Christian, in fact,
I'm as far from it as you can get... So this doesn't come from any personal
offense taken at the subject matter. It comes from a sense of right and
wrong and being offended by what people call art and what certain so called
artists actually get money for doing. THAT is offensive.
Ben Boxer wrote: The artist has a right to his or her freedom
of expression. The beholder has the right to reject the artist's
vision, but not to deny him the right to express it. Likewise
with Eminem....(snip)
thank you for your very well reasoned words.
Giuliani has the rightn toi huis opinion, and the right to call the work in question trash, just as the first amednment gurantees me the right to call eminem's work trash, or Dr. Laura's radio
show, and it also guarantees eminem and Dr Laura the right to express their views, just as it guarantees me the right to dislike them, and as it guarantteed us collectively the right to vuirtually
kill Dr. Laura's show.
I can't deny that it would please me if we could do the same for ewminem's :'music".
But not the gorvernment, not commiittess and legal censorship. Never not that.
gabriel
Bob says: I think Lawrence makes a good point; I doubt the mayor would be too upset
if Phelps marched down Christopher Street. But, I feel for example dr.
laura should be taken off the air; because she preaches hate. But, she
has a right to say anything....(snip)
There is a difference between this and Dr. Laura or anything of that
nature. You can change the channel and not listen to Dr. Laura, you can't
however
go to the museum to see real art and put a bag over your head when you pass
by art of this nature. Programming on TV and Radio is sponsored by companies
and you can simply not support the companies who support things you
disapprove of. When it comes to a museum, what can you do? Refuse to pay
your taxes? And yes I am aware that this showing is in part sponsored by
Christi's, but that's only part. That any of it is sponsored by taxes is
offensive.
Mike
Sorry for opening up a can of worms by sending in that
article about Mayor Giuliani's distaste. I thought it was
funny and thought you might enjoy it. I suppose most of you
did, but now the postings are growing more and more
serious-minded and a couple that have been sent to me are
falling off the edge. End of thread! The subject is making
enemies, and it ain't worth it. So if your posting comes
back to you as a reject, that's the reason. Don't take it
personally. I deleted half a dozen of the latest ones, and
they're still coming in, most of them negative. This doesn't
mean we are shutting out discussions of
art/politics/religion and many other subjects. It means only
that when the going gets rough and loaded with
recriminations, it's time to put out the fires and go into
our tents and cuddle instead of fight.
Ben Boxer
I liked seeing the article on Giuliani's rage. It
was very timely because on another list we were just
talking about what is an isn't art at a very local
level. In Columbus Ohio there is someone who has "art"
objects in their yard that the neighbors think it is
"junk". The story has unfolded to the point that the
police came and took the "art" home owner to be given
a psychological evaluation. One must be mad to have
objects other than porcelain deer or Yard Balls in
their yard. (Plastic Pink Flamingos are OK in Parma
Ohio?)
There is a similar story unfolding in Akron Ohio
as well and the article on Giuliani fit right in that
thread on the "art not art" discussions.
I like some of the varied threads that appear at
times in this list. So far my delete button has worked
on the emails I don't care for.
Leo
Dearest Facist Pig,
We need to learn to just enjoy the ride... and breathe deeply.
Love,
Dear Terry in KC,
I'm glad you like pork. My partner, who is
a superb cook, served me what we call in
the South "a mess of pork chops" for dinner.
In honor, of course, of "fascist pig." With
cinnamon apple sauce because I'm a sweetie
and some spicy dill potato salad because I
know when to pour the vinegar on the fire.
We would stick our heads out of the upstairs
bedroom window (usually after sex, smoking
cigarettes) and look along the road. When we
saw our victims coming, we would burst into
the Communist anthem, "Bandiera Rossa"
(Red Flag), which was FORBIDDEN in
the Christian area and scare the shit out of
the shoppers who would take off like bats
out of hell thinking they were still on Commie
turf and might get caught on the other side
on account of all that noise.
Well, sir, one day we spotted this lone figure
in a big cap tooling along the road, wearing an
overcoat in summer and looking suspicious as
hell carrying a napkin-covered basket with
carrot tops peeking out from under the edge.
It was too good to resist. My pal and I started
our routine.
Startled, the poor guy jumped a foot. He
dropped the basket and out spilled the carrots
and a cabbage and tomatoes and cucumbers
all over the road. In his haste to pick up the
incriminating evidence, he knocked off his
cap and the overcoat fell open to reveal his
clerical garb. It was the mean old parish priest
himself! ("Don't do as I do; do as I SAY do!")
HAHAHA! We thought our sides would split
from the laughter. I felt no sympathy for him.
He was a shifty buzzard who feasted on the
local poor with nary a glimmer of compassion
in his heart.
Our raucous laughter so upset him that he looked
up at the window and turned purple in the face
when he saw me. He hated Americans, and
especially me. I often taught English to the kids in
the Communist village.
He lifted his fist and shook it in fury. "Fascist!
Fascist pig!" In a rage, he stalked off without
the produce, leaving it scattered across the road.
My pal and I had a fine salad for lunch!
I am happy to hear that you did indeed enjoy a nice salad!
That facist pig deserved to lose his lunch.
;-)
Thank you for keeping me in stitches, Ben.
T
From: gabriel gabriel@ap.net
i agree, after receiving some private e-mails, that people got overheated over this;
but i think in the broader issues of freedom of speech expression there is room
for a good discussion if peoiple could remain civilized.
gabriel
Why not his Liver, with Phava Beans and a nice Chianti.
Hannibal Lechtre aka Derek
Well... Uhhmmm... That might have been a more involved relationship than Ben
was prepared for at the time... Uhh.. Perhaps...
Ben? Are you a chianti man? Or liver perhaps?
(Shudder)
I used to love liver, but only calves' liver, thank
you! Too much cholesterol for me to eat it since
my heart attack a few years ago. Forget the
chianti, as well. I haven't touched alcohol for
years and have no taste for it at all.
However, there were vineyards all around the
house on the Italian farm where I lived, and the
family pressed wine from its own grapes,
fermented in two huge wooden kegs that filled an
entire room on the ground floor. One held a dry
red, and the other a sweet white. As the
well-water was not always safe to drink, wine
was the favored beverage everywhere, save for
hot chocolate made from boiled raw milk or
coffee boiled with the grounds or bottled water,
of course.
As for fava beans, they were a standard Sunday
evening meal in season, spread on the
oilcloth-covered kitchen table in neat piles with
salt shakers, sugar bowl, a pitcher of olive oil and
quartered loaves of homemade bread.
The procedure was for each diner to sprinkle salt
on the table at his place and then dip into it a big,
fat, raw fava bean and gobble it down with a swig
of dry red. Sometimes a salad of lettuce and
tomato was provided, as well. Once each
person's pile of beans was exhausted, it was time
for dessert, consisting of olive oil poured over the
slab of bread sprinkled heavily with sugar and
consumed with draughts of sweet white wine,
followed by a bright red Algerian orange.
Apropos the pal who hung out the window with
me after sex and scouted the country road for
furtive Christians sneaking home after buying
the forbidden produce at the Communist market,
you can read more about him in my story "Bath
House" in Pixtales at the Silverfoxes Clubhouse.
End of silverfoxesclub-digest V1 #144
|
Here is a picture of my cat Chico. We have been committed lovers for twelve
years. When we met, he had just left his mother. I believe in starting them
young. Both of us enjoy sashimi and sushi. It is true that when he is
naughty, I tell him that he will be catsoup (also spelled catsup) for
breakfast. But not once have I eaten my pussy. And I assure you that I
don't eat my friends pussies either.