cliterature

In Peverse Crimes in History the authors write “Countess Bathory is also of especial interest because she is a woman.” But there reasoning is not what you might suspect as they continue: “Female sadists and mass-murderers have been less frequent than males ones, though perhaps only because women have less often attained positions of power where large-scale crimes are possible.”  Bathory was a 16th century Hungarian countess and is often mentioned in relation to the invention of the modern notion of vampires, because she amused herself torturing and murdering and is often described in this book, and many others, as bathing in their blood.

It might seem that the importance of power, and its associated immunity, is clear in that Bathory was the only person directly implicated in the murders who was not executed as a result.  She was declared insane and walled up within her apartment to spend the rest of her life in isolation and darkness where she lived for four more years and died at the age of 54.  But there is another explanation, that her two son-in-laws didn’t want her convicted as her property would revert to the throne–and dammit they married for that castle and the meant to have it. 

Add to that–it is often said that Countess Bathory bathed in blood, the basis for her fame as a proto-vampire, but this does not seem to be the case.  This morbid detail arose in fables and tales that appeared after Bathory’s death and can be easily falsified as many documents relating to her life and the trial of her servants and associated are a matter of public record.  The closest accurate detail is that some of her victims were bitten, but there is no indication of blood being consumed or otherwise enjoyed (the vampire equivalent of ‘not inhaling’ at best).

So, maybe it is a good point that if more women had enough power to be kill over 600 people before anyone felt the need to intervene, more women might be mass murders.  But she achieved power from her noble father, retained by a noble marraige, was taught how to torture woman by her husband and (temporarily) escaped death through the actions of her daughters’ husbands.  And as for the bloo fable, it was suggested I suppose to explain how a women could be a mass-murderer.  What acceptable reason could they could come up with that would drive a female to such extremes?

Vanity.

 So there we go.  A woman so powerful she is now remembered almost entirely for something she never did.

Commentators seems to be constantly surprised and dismayed by the interest straight people have in gay and lesbian erotica.  It seems we are all meant to inhabit a tidy world where each person only lusts after one gender and the other gender is about as exciting as a coat-stand (notwithstanding that there are no doubt a few coat-stand fetishists out there)

 For example, Ashlye Tellis writes: “One of the most infuriating things about straight men is their professed interest in lesbian porn. Straight men are so assured of their place in the world, they think the frame of the lesbian porn scene is merely waiting for their entry … All these women need is a d**k, is what they argue. “

Straw man argument aside, there is a leap here from the bemusing fact that men watch women together to a very gendered all-encompassing interpretation as to why they do it.  How is it gendered?  Well, women show an equal and opposite interest in gay male erotica (e.g. slash, MM, yaoi), albeit more often in written rather than visual forms.

Does this mean they are so assured of their place in the world that they think gay men are just waiting for them and their magic c**t?  To be honest this interpretation is probably right on for a small minority who prefer voyeurism scenarios leading to MFM.  But actually the MM fandom is very diverse.  There are many explanations and most of them are probably correct for some people, but none apply universally.

And whatever the motivation might be, what is acheived by denying the legitmacy of the response (”professed interest”) or somehow denying its logic, legitimacy or moral standing.

This kind of regulation of desire didn’t play when it was done to women (e.g. Freud’s theory at clitoral arousal was ‘infantile’ and vaginal stimulation alone should suffice, not to mention all those charming theories about hysteria, frigidity and nymphomania).  Women have fought very hard to be free to have their own desires, as diverse and perverse as they please so long as nobody gets hurt.  It seems only fair that what is good for the goose should also be permitted for the gander: the freedom to choose erotica we like, without fear of slander.

It seems that everyone is a little bit lesbian these days.  And its not that I doubt it, really.  I just don’t beleive it either. 

Every since Madonna and Britney (and I still have nightmares about that) it seems like very actress is frenching their female co-star on the red carpet (Natalie Portman, Scarlett Johansson), disclosing their secret lesbian crush (Megan Fox) or love of girl on girl porn (Aubrey O’Day)–with Kate Perry singing I Kissed A Girl in the background.

 I think acting lesbian for the ‘thrill’ of it really isn’t all that modern and free-spirited.  The message is not so much that being lesbian is okay–but that it is and remains transgressive rather than a perfectly normal romantic orientation.