I think this guy was a writing teacher of mine in 8th grade. Had i known his mine was as perverse as mine, i might have had more fun.
--KL
07/10 |
once i saw a boobie
--ck
03/18 |
complete logical inturpreting
--dj
10/16 |
Very nice. I think it's a bit more of a sarcastic critique of the Western tradition than it is being given credit for. I think that some of the offended and bored have not understood this fact, and this because there is some implicit notion of harmony in them, and this implicit thing is being eroded-- God forbid! One should not, if one is the good animal human, dislike this erosion-- one should pleasure in it and in its redundancy-- redundancy is one very good strategy of erosion.
--LS
09/11 |
garden is the place for joy only
--sex
09/04 |
"And God did this, and God did that..." "The cock here, and the cock there..."
Seems to me like this writer doesn't have much imagination, except for this fixation with cocks.Perhaps he is is "unfulfilled."
Maybe in time,this writer will have a break.All in all, I find "In The Garden" very repetitive...repetitive...repetitive...repetitive.
--M.E.
09/02 |
two cocks erected and two pussy's wet!
--sm
09/01 |
Insulting and boring, yes, boring. Sexuality began with the cock and woman was created in order to provide a receptacle for semen? Thanks, but I've heard this before and it was just as unimaginative and uninspired the first time. If you need to re-interpret the already patriarchal Garden of Eden story, couldn't you try to give this tale more meaning for women instead of infinitely less meaning? "And the woman....was the intersection of two immense pleasures — the boy's and God's — and she did not know which, if either, was hers," I am a woman and I'll tell you whose pleasure I experience during good sex - I experience MY OWN PLEASURE. Religious angst notwithstanding.
I read what is posted on Nerve because it intrigues, excites, empowers, and amuses me. This is the one unfortunate exception to that rule so far.
--P
08/23 |
it was a very good storey
--mb
08/16 |
just a little note to brighten your day (and night)
--
08/16 |
One's expectations when reading text are entirely up to the reader - what the author thinks we should expect is "not worth responding to". Said author is not looking for substantive criticism - he is looking for vindication of his mighty talent. Always boring.
That said - I really enjoyed this piece until I got to the truly neanderthal points about male vs. female sexuality. Then it was all over.
--MW
08/15 |
I have yet to see, among the responses of those who were frightened by this text(and particularly those who were frightened enough to claim to be bored-- a strategy usually reserved for the 12-15 year old crowd), a critique that addresses the substance of the narrative and/or the constellation of images that drives the narrative. With one exception-- this being the "angry male" who claims to be offended by the depiction of the woman in the garden-- her indecisiveness. This exception, while it does draw attention to ONE detail from the text, is not worth responding to because it proceeds to interpret this detail with something less than Lacanian complexity. My question, then, is simply: does anyone on either "side" of the "argument" have anything to say that might actually serve to take even one step toward an interpretation, a feeling for what this text is (deftly or not) signifying? Or is it an unwritten rule that persons visiting a site wherein "sex" is "visible" should stifle such expectations?
--RN
08/12 |
Now this sounds more like the kind of creation that we might have imagined.
--lil
08/09 |
This is a very distasteful atticle and I can't believe anyone would be interested or publish trash of this nature. This doesn't make any sense at all, what could be the purpose of this type of ignorance.
--BP
08/09 |
Joe needs help!
--mb
08/09 |
Anyone who can't take a good joke about God and/or creationism must be filed under the category of "doosh."
--jc
08/09 |
Another immensely entertaining piece of Wenderothism. Muchos gracias.
--jc
08/09 |
and, you know, I don't give a damn about mixing up god and semen - genesis and excrement - don't give a good god damn. It's the tired old man=hunting, woman=hunted that burns me. It's just sophmoric, dull, and oh so icky. - hornrim
--
08/09 |
Not only was your little story REPULSIVE, but your reaction to the comments you've recieved are evan worse. To put this type of smut into some sort or Religious Twist is not only Sacreligious, it's S T U P I D!!!! Your a pig, and you cant' evan spell. People like you make me sick. Trust me, there is a place in hell with your name on it. Nerve, you got alot of nerve putting this one in here. You've lost my interest.
--jd
08/08 |
Wonderful to see someone irreverently filling in the gaps in our Judeo-Christian mythos. At least *I* don't remember that part about penis/God's eyeballs/pussy in the Genesis section of the comic book bible that I read. It makes at least as much sense as some of the other creation myths that humans have cooked up over the years.
In addition to there being little sexual discussion in most western religious texts, has anybody else noticed the lack of a sense of humor as well? Is there some correlation between the two? To get into heaven, do we have to give up all fun? Didn't Jesus laugh? Yeah, great that he turned water into wine... but what they didn't tell you is that he had originally turned the wine into water as a practical joke first! Ha-ha, very funny Mr. Miracle Man, now turn it back into wine so we can get on with the event. :)
I'm not sure what I'm getting at. Just random ramblings bubbling up from my brain and spilling out onto the keyboard. But why didn't they preach to us about sex or laughter? I don't think this is purely an Episcopalian thing.
I don't have all the religious answers. I'm not an atheist, nor am I practicing any particular religion, but I've experienced enough religion to know that in addition to a *healthy respect* for those beliefs, there also needs to be a little sense of humor. C'mon! Christians are worshiping a man who completely trashed his own religious establishment's temple. Aren't we allowed to shake loose a few good questions for ourselves???
--E
08/08 |
Joe's piece joins Monty Python et al. in the scabrous humor department. Valuable stuff!!! (I smiled all through it.) Even if it isn't Shakespeare (which it clearly isn't), it is very useful.
Anthropolgists use the term "a joking relationship" to identify certain intensely competitive and therefore tension-filled relationships in tribes, e.g. maternal uncle and nephew. So the jokes that are the funniest to us are the ones that tap the most powerful unresolved tensions in our worlds.
Now, clearly, if Genesis is powerful (and culturally it sure is), and if it seems to deny our sense of our own sexuality, then making a joke of it is great therapy.
But of course, you have to have a certain degree of liberatedness to appreciate the humor. If you are still overwhelmed by the authority of Genesis, then it isn't funny; it is scary, and it pisses people off, and at a certain point, they can get violent about it.
So, "smile when you say that, pardner."
--mhd
08/07 |
Amusing but entirely inconsequential.
--PK
08/07 |
you people need to get a SENSE OF HUMOR.
--DB
08/07 |
This writer is totally insensitive to the feelings and philosophy of other people who are believers in God and embrace their faith with honor, dignity and sincerity - none of which the author can appreciate.
This writer is an atheist with anomosity toward faith of any kind and I find the writing to be disgusting and dispicable and I will never visit this web site again.
--LM
08/07 |
Ugh. Not up to your usually fine standards, poetry and otherwise.
--SK
08/07 |
hey - fuck off, feedback-writers... nice one Joe, how's Wendy?
--RM
08/07 |
What the hell is this? I've read some alternate readings of the Eden story, sure, but this load of crap was just bad! I mean, semen and ova are God's eyeballs? Is there some source for this, or is this just some Troma-inspired wanking carried on by whoever it was who wrote this? I'm sorry, I thought Nerve was better than this.
--lmd
08/07 |
So..the Woman's sex life is defined by indecision? And the Man's sex life is constant pursuit of this indecisive pussy? C'mon - I think I've read this before - and it's still tired. The desire to not be pregnant and chained to said Man may have something to do with it. This is the kind of stuff i expect to read in Playboy - not on Nerve. And I'm an angry male - not an angry female.
--mw
08/07 |
send feedback on "In The Garden"
back to "In The Garden" |
