Leave a comment

Comments 9

olegriz February 26 2007, 21:22:51 UTC
Lucky you! (Though you do have to do all that reading for the class that sounds so interesting.

Reply

chibi_squirt February 27 2007, 04:54:13 UTC
Well, yes. Hence the subject line of the post.

*is ALREADY gearing up*

Reply

olegriz February 27 2007, 07:59:24 UTC
I actually made the comment when nothing was actually visible (and thought the absence of a paper made it worthwhile.) The actual assignment is entertaining (especially since its your assignment), though I suspect the smut is of a different sort from that which appears occasionally on this livejournal :))

Reply

chibi_squirt February 27 2007, 16:34:37 UTC
I suspect the smut is of a different sort from that which appears occasionally on this livejournal :))I suspect that's actually going to work as one of the main points of my argument: How is word-porn not porn? (Rhetorical.) Since it is porn, is it exploitative of women? Answer: another question. How can it be exploitative of women when it's primarily marketed *to* women, written *by* women, and prominently *features* women, which is a hell of a lot better than any other genre of literature, by the way. (Side note: can porn be literature, and vice versa?) Since I don't think it can be exploitative if it's by, for, and about the people it's supposed to be exploiting, I'm going to say no, it isn't exploitative ( ... )

Reply


emmy_roo February 27 2007, 04:08:59 UTC
I think your lj-cut malfunctioned. I don't see anything. What's the topic?

Reply

chibi_squirt February 27 2007, 04:53:23 UTC
Better?

Reply

emmy_roo February 27 2007, 04:56:05 UTC
wow

Reply

chibi_squirt February 27 2007, 04:59:37 UTC
*is in glee mode*

Reply


Leave a comment

Up