lead us into / not into
Now playing: 'Drain The Blood' / 'Tombstone, Baby'
"Heavy religious upbringings are responsible for some of the greatest rock stars in the world. Put someone in that position and they're going to react against it. Sinning is good."
Easy for you to say.
But what does it mean to say that sinning is good? Does it mean A) "there should be no such concept as transgression", or B) "there should be the concept of transgression, and one should transgress as often as possible"? Hippies and sex therapists will tell you A, punks and pornographers tend to go for B. I suspect Brody Dalle means A since a rock star who doesn't believe in the concept of transgression tends to be rather boring by the standards which I suspect she has in mind, whereas B gives you Iggy Pop, Nick Cave and Greg Dulli, each in their own way (although the last two spend as much time trying to resist temptation and wrestling with their consciences, cuz even B gets boring after a while if you don't add some conflict or variety).
The problem is, while heavy religious upbringings may well make for great rock stars, I'm not sure they make for very healthy normal human beings. I'm all too aware of how much I'm repressing, and I don't have a guitar handy I could smash. Fuck!
Peaches is a whole other kettle of fish, with complications - I reckon many of her fans would say she falls into category A, whereas I've seen some of her detractors put her in category B and castigate her for this: the accusation being something like "she thinks she's so transgressive but we're not shocked or titillated by strap-ons anymore". Personally, while I have no time for the detractors (who I think are being disingenuous in their jaded wordliness, and not realising who this stuff would still shock - beside which, the tunes to back up the sex are there, cloth-ears), I'm not entirely sure about first explanation either. This is the problem I have with some manifestations of the ideology "sex-positive": everything's healthy, which means that everything's squeaky clean. Which means nobody ever gets that thrill which comes from succumbing to temptation... Which could mean that our lives are a lot less fucked-up, but it could also mean that they're a lot more dull.
Oh, this is another can of worms. I can see the worms crawling into place to form new possible threads of discussion. To think this started as one of those thinly-veiled personal therapy posts.
Now playing: 'Drain The Blood' / 'Tombstone, Baby'
"Heavy religious upbringings are responsible for some of the greatest rock stars in the world. Put someone in that position and they're going to react against it. Sinning is good."
Easy for you to say.
But what does it mean to say that sinning is good? Does it mean A) "there should be no such concept as transgression", or B) "there should be the concept of transgression, and one should transgress as often as possible"? Hippies and sex therapists will tell you A, punks and pornographers tend to go for B. I suspect Brody Dalle means A since a rock star who doesn't believe in the concept of transgression tends to be rather boring by the standards which I suspect she has in mind, whereas B gives you Iggy Pop, Nick Cave and Greg Dulli, each in their own way (although the last two spend as much time trying to resist temptation and wrestling with their consciences, cuz even B gets boring after a while if you don't add some conflict or variety).
The problem is, while heavy religious upbringings may well make for great rock stars, I'm not sure they make for very healthy normal human beings. I'm all too aware of how much I'm repressing, and I don't have a guitar handy I could smash. Fuck!
Peaches is a whole other kettle of fish, with complications - I reckon many of her fans would say she falls into category A, whereas I've seen some of her detractors put her in category B and castigate her for this: the accusation being something like "she thinks she's so transgressive but we're not shocked or titillated by strap-ons anymore". Personally, while I have no time for the detractors (who I think are being disingenuous in their jaded wordliness, and not realising who this stuff would still shock - beside which, the tunes to back up the sex are there, cloth-ears), I'm not entirely sure about first explanation either. This is the problem I have with some manifestations of the ideology "sex-positive": everything's healthy, which means that everything's squeaky clean. Which means nobody ever gets that thrill which comes from succumbing to temptation... Which could mean that our lives are a lot less fucked-up, but it could also mean that they're a lot more dull.
Oh, this is another can of worms. I can see the worms crawling into place to form new possible threads of discussion. To think this started as one of those thinly-veiled personal therapy posts.
<< Home