It seems to manage to misinterpret both liberal and conservative
>>attitudes towards sex.
>>
>>
>
>I wonder what those are. :-)
>
Okay, I shouldn't have worded it that way, since it makes no sense, and
I've no clue how to define
what a "liberal" attitude towards sex is, though the most influential
"conservative" position right now seems to be that sex is a wonderful
thing, as long as it's confined to people in a marriage relationship.
The story is poking fun at people who think sex is dirty and bestial no
matter the circumstances, and while this position is an easy target, I
don't think it's very influential in society right now (though I could
be wrong).
>>I am a 30yr female who is a moderate liberal, and I found the story
>>offensive.
>>
>>
>
>What about the story did you find offensive? I thought Vonnegut was
>being ironic.
>
>
I read the story a while ago so maybe I should reread it, it starts out
pretty funny (I still remember the little poetry couplet the guy sends
people), but when the solution to the pervasive anti-sex attitude in
society is to rape the woman and then tell her she's only angry because
he's a bad lover, I had a problem there. It's possible the "solution"
is as ironic as the "problem" in this story, but it didn't seem in
keeping with the humanist and generous attitude Vonnegut usually takes
towards his characters, even when he's making fun of them.
I haven't read "Gloriana", someone told me that after Moorcock wrote
"Behold the Man" (which I haven't read either), some people were so
upset that they wanted to make sure he never got published in the US
again, though they obviously didn't succeed.
Rachel
|