just a quick notice that I saw and hopefully will have a bit more time to think about this at length but my short answer would be that I subscribe ultimately to the we're not actually reading/writing real men but fictional constructs that serve certain purposes and fulfill certain desires...and in that reading the symbolic function these characters fill is more central than their actual bodies and the sex scenes are quite often metonymic representations of the emotional intimacy...
now, clearly there are tons of we just lust after these guys and want to see them as naked and sexing it up as possible, but the rejection of ATG (or even any two bodies that look like our characters) suggests to me our investment in the ROLES rather than the BODIES and the function they perform for one another rather than just the sex they are having...
Not sure I'm making much sense, but if you can tell me where you see the celebration of the penis as actual organ rather than the hyperfunctioning multiorgasmatic often always erect phallus???
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-29 07:24 pm (UTC)now, clearly there are tons of we just lust after these guys and want to see them as naked and sexing it up as possible, but the rejection of ATG (or even any two bodies that look like our characters) suggests to me our investment in the ROLES rather than the BODIES and the function they perform for one another rather than just the sex they are having...
Not sure I'm making much sense, but if you can tell me where you see the celebration of the penis as actual organ rather than the hyperfunctioning multiorgasmatic often always erect phallus???