more thoughts on taboos

As I've been unpacking, I have come across some of my books that I have not read in a long time. So again, taking advantage of my ability to nearly completely forget what I have read pretty quickly, I have been re-reading, and enjoying, some of my books at random.

As it happens, last night, I picked up Susie Bright's "Full Exposure, Opening up to Your Sexual Creativity & Erotic Expression." And since I have been thinking about how sex is ok to use in our schizophrenic
(of, relating to, or characterized by the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic elements). culture to sell things, but pretty frightening otherwise, I was surprised to come across this:

"...in the mainstream world of advertising and entertainment, sex is used strictly as titillation, and the viewer is left holding the bag. Almost everything we see on commercial media is powered by sexual titillation.... Commercial titillation has the gimmicky personality that fits perfectly with our obsession with making real sexual pleasure either an enigma or a sham....What, you actually thought we were going to deliver on this choice
little thrill? Sucker!"

(Darn! And here I thought that buying that Expensive Perfume would land me in the hot embrace of some exotic European man, for sure!)

Bright notes that while "erotic censorship has become an American fetish, an institution, and a superstition--a faith in material success and excess", her greatest ally in her erotic judgment is her "constant observation that the aphrodisiac of a price, of a dazzlingly crafted come-on, is a genuine disappointment."

Are we mixed up, or what? The portrayal or even the thought of real people in a real sexual act is gross and pornographic, while the glossy, extravagant, phony and exclusive titillation of advertising is considered more aesthetically pleasing and rarely catches the censors eye.