Kadın

David Lynch and Isabella Rossellini by Helmut Newton.

iyi bir kadına
rastladığında
onu yaşa,

uyuma,
sabahla

onu kokla

tıkırtılarını dinle
her adımında

onu sesinle okşa

iyi bir kadına
baktığında
rahatla,
korkma.

nefesi
adam eder seni
ne kadar
eksik
olsan da.

Büyü

Selen Gülün plays Fruitful.

büyüleyen hayat akıyor ellerinden
yemek yaparken,
ve yumruğunu havaya sallarken
ve bebeğine memeni uzatırken
ve aramızda kalan binlerce farklı sebepten.

Lustful Love

Khajuraho Lakshmana Temple

I was thinking about passionate erotic love today. 

Two persons desiring each other badly.

And then, games, touches, wet lips, smells, brutality sometimes... Joie de vivre!

We all know those familiar scenarios but how can this be possible between two individuals?

What factors are playing the descriptive roles shaping all the attitudes? 

Common path is that usually, you meet someone and you spend some time with this person, then sexual attraction rises. Finally, sexual intercourse starts. Most likely, this period takes place at the beginning of the relationships. In time, the level of sexual desire between persons decreases...

I think, this lustful interaction between people is possible if you "reify" the person whom you are in a relationship with. You need to perceive the one in front of you as he/she is a "thing" that you really need to occupy. The elements supporting this "desirable object" might be eyes, fingers, breasts, muscles, hair, legs, ankles, toes, moves, voice, nipples, smell, hips etc. all possible proven attributes that sex industry has already packed and served. After adjusting the materialization process, you become able to use the person on purpose: You can touch, grab, taste, eat, penetrate, tie, lock up... anything you'd like. And, of course, most of the times, this is a mutual way of doing things.

I know that I may sound like a director of a BDSM movie but according to my "so called" hypothesis, it is very difficult to keep the lustful love alive in a relationship if you approach your partner as a fragile human being who actually has multi-dimensional qualities, thoughts, pains, weaknesses, deep feelings, traumas etc. Because, all those make the relationship complex, heavier, deeper and too much "humane". On the other hand, in sexuality, things must be done in a light hearted and naughty manner. Actions must be bolder than thoughts are. Thinking too much distracts you, simply kills the fire. This must be a joyful game, a sort of exciting exploration. Therefore, people need to create contexts where they can reify their partners. In other words, set the scene properly for firing things up. Be a mad lover, not a tender mother/father.

In our lives, we are playing our roles in the pre-defined contexts. You may name it office, school, street, family, army, city so on and on... Then you come back home, to your partner, and consider this gathering "real", not a role any more. This is your private life, so intimate... Actually, our "private" lives are not exceptions to the pre-defined context we're already in. If you attracted by this illlusion and try to get real too much, boredom and  pain are the inevitable moods you are to meet. This is not a curse, this is not "you" but this is existential crisis.  For lustful pleasure, we'd better move away from the "reality".

Keep the joy alive :\

  

Sex-u-ality

Bugün Baudrillard'ın cinsel kimlik üzerine düşüncelerini derleyen bir makale okudum. Hemen cin fikirli adam tavrıyla "ben bunu düşünmüştüm" dedim. Ama gerçekten düşünmüştüm :) 6 Haziran 2011 tarihinde bir arkadaşıma attığım e-postayı aşağıya kopyalıyorum:

"...Birkaç düşüncemi sizle paylaşmak istiyorum: Erkek ve kadın olarak var olmanın mikro tarihi konusu ilgimi çekmeye başladı son zamanlarda.Tabi zamanında Michel Foucault yazmış: Deliliğin Tarihi, Cinselliğin Tarihi, Kliniğin Tarihi vs...
CNBC-E'de gösterilen Spartacus dizisinin Maslak'taki dev afişi dikkatimi çekti:
Elindeki kılıcı havaya kaldırmış, zafer çığlığı atan bir gladyatör. Son derece maskülen. Başarmışlık, güç, erkeklik kokuyor. Hayatın gerçeğine yakın.
Sonra aklıma bir orta çağ adamı geldi: Eve girer, evde kadınları ve çocukları vardır. Eve yemek getirmiştir.Kadınları onu pişirir. O adam kendisine kudret veren kadın, çocuk, toprak gibi değerleri korumak için ölebilir, öldürebilir. Az konuşur. Çok hareket eder.
Sonra kendime baktım. Takım elbiseli, ofise giden. Kadınlı erkekli karışık düzende oturup bilgisayar karşısında iş yapan "modern" birey.
Yanımda oturan kadınla beni ayıran "şeyler"in adedi çok çok azalmış. Öyle ki birbirimizi tanımlayamaz olmuşuz gibi geliyor.
Tabi ki ataerkil geleneğin gölgesi erkeği 3-5 adım önde tutuyor hala ama şu zamanda ne erkek erkekliğini biliyor, ne de kadın kadınlığını.
İşin ilginç yanı hala kadın-erkek cinsel etkileşimi devam edebiliyor. Bir kadın kendine bu denli benzeyen bir adamı neden beğenir?
Benzer işler yapıyor, benzer arabalar kullanıyor, benzer parfümleri kullanıyor, benzer zevkleri var, benzer hisler vs...
Jean Baudrillard'ın bahsetiği simulakra/simulasyon odaklı post modern modelde, daima başka göstergelere işaret eden göstergeler dünyasında ayağımızı yere sağlam basmamızı sağlayacak referanslar bulmakta zorlanıyoruz ve cinselliğimiz de bu bulanık ortamdan menfi manada nasibini alıyor bence.
Tanıdığım kadınların çoğu erkek gibi düşünüyor, erkekler de kadın gibi. Aradaki çizgi çok flu...
Kendini öteki üzerinde var etme paradigması işlemez hale gemekte sanki.
Oysa gladyatörün yaşamı  ne kadar net: Erkek gibi savaş. Kazan. Sevin. Ye. İç. Seks yap. Öl.
Düşüncelerimi organize bir biçimde veremediğimin farkındayım, umarım fazla gürültü yapmamışımdır.
Sevgiler."

Not: Evet, sıkıcı biriyim :)

The Family

I am thinking about being a family...

After a jazz concert performed in a grand shopping mall, my wife and daughter went to the cinema to see Tim Burton's last movie, Alice in Wonderland. Then I stepped into an Italian restaurant located in the mall and ordered a pizza margherita and a glass of red wine.

I was alone... Having a book on my table as usual... I was reading a couple of lines then watching the other tables. I like watching people... There were a group of three women living their 40s and a young couple in the restaurant. The book I was reading was about irrationality. I was reading, learning, thinking, listening to others in the restaurant...

After a while, a family of 5 persons came and seated beside my table. A son, 2 daughters, mom and dad...

They were speaking Spanish... At first sight, I loved the scene. The kids were energetic, full of life; father was calm and lofty, mother was cute after giving birth three times. The family was looking awesome indeed.

I really tried to understand this feeling: Having more than 1 child as a man. How can this feel? Creating new individuals and taking care of them. Being a "senior" father and a husband. I tried to empathize...

You are a man, loving a woman, having 3 kids, having a good job and a family car. Is it the real meaning of being a man? Can a man be considered man enough without having a wife or kids?

Being a large family... My external opinion about the large families is that the variety of fresh existences of a young man and a woman becomes the existences of 3 kids who are full of energy. Man gets weaker, woman gets bushed, life goes on... A family with multiple children is like a pot where you melt down your vital energy and then, you pour it into the spirits of your kids. Is this the real meaning of being a man? A strong guy who can hadle toughest issues, who is a warrior, who gives lives and who takes lives when necessary, who can compromise, whose heart is full of love. A man who takes the woman away, who can set up a world and make it last...

Wow! What a man? Are you that sort of a man?

There exist lots of ancient, modern and holy books about being a woman. Their dilemmas, problems, solutions, organizations, clothes, shoes, needs etc. However, I cannot remember well known works of art which examine the man as an object and a subject. Because the man is considered as the default form of human beings. Men are thorough and simple. Nothing more to say about men. Men are men! Gods are men! And men are gods! Plus, being a man is usually defined by using clichés: You can be a family guy, who can sacrifice, or you can be a free spirit, an excursionist who merely amuses himself. Are there any intermediate forms between those 2 stereotypes? Are there passages between them? What if you use those passages to see the other side if they exist?

Nature may show us the right answers. Lions, apes, wolves, birds, whales... How do they found and perpetuate families?  

I know that I have just asked questions in this post. I have got no answers, but the questions.

Oh Life...

I wanna flow like water...

Great life!

P.S. After a couple of days I had written this article, I started to read the book Why Is Sex Fun?: The Evolution Of Human Sexuality by Jared Diamond and I think this book has got the answers to my questions. 

The Bra Dilemma

The bra, formally brassiere... Today, I just want to dig the subject of this popular underwear a bit. As far as I know, women have been using breast supporting garments since 1500 BC. The modern bra is the evolved form of restless corsets and became an industrial product around the year of 1930. You can examine the basic parts of an abstract bra in the image below:
According to my experiences, a small tie shaped silk band located between the cups is an essential part of a modern bra as well :) I don't know why it is omitted in the above image...

Anyway, my observations about the women's demands from a bra are

1. Women want a bra to support their breasts and they want to achieve a sexy and healthy bosom posture.
2. Women want a bra to protect their breasts and nipples from aggressive glances.
3. Women don't want a bra to be realized as an underwear. They want bras to be hidden.

Three observations in contradiction. Number one stresses that women want their breasts to attract attention, they want them to seem well and be realized by others. Number two highlights the women's feeling of hiding their breasts from the outside world. So in here, we can consider the bra as the armour of the breasts. And number three says that women want to appear in a natural way, they do not want to reveal the fact that they are supporting and protecting their breasts by using an artificial thing.

What is this? Too complex to understand... Too complex to live with...

I tnink that this unnatural complexity is the fault of the men dominated social life. Naturally, women never want to hide their breasts under some uncomfortable garments which presses over and make them sweat and scratch their delicate skin all day. But they want to be in the ideal feminine shape defined by the men's desire. As James Brown said, "it is a man's man's man's world"... Moreover, they want to feel secure against the men's gaze and disturbance that annoys women very often in daily life. So the market produced a product that supplies those complex and meaningless demands: The bra. And its contradictions. The following advertisement is a good example of the absurdity that forces the bras exist:

Some social movements exist under the brand of topfreedom and I hope they broaden fast. Topfree Equal Rights Association (TERA) and Bara Bröst (Bare Breast in Swedish) are good and most popular ones in action.

I know that I sound too feminist as a man. However, I believe that humanity needs to simpilfy the over complex, traditional and dogmatic issues of life to step forward in civilization. We don't need to undergo those dark and vague spots which choke open minded human beings. I consider those spots as tumors of the social system.

The life is unique and we have to glorify the life itself and ourselves. Let's open our eyes and see the naked truth. Are we that brave?