Thursday, February 08, 2007

Celibacy or Death

Kofi Fosu Forson

Who is to suppose the slave from the master? By definition, squatting on all fours to receive begets the role of the victim. Is the slave then always subservient? Does he/she possess prowess of any kind?

A rope or chain around the neck, bound to a chair, whip to flesh would suggest forms of sadomasochism. How then as language is it played out in the professional arena, be it with relevance to an employer and an employee, an artist and a muse, a director and an actress or a painter and a model.

Can the employer of a business ever be considered an SM mistress? The language of SM needs the master and the slave. In a room of many only two will speak that very particular language. Given the role of the employer, the employee will round off the game, set and match.

At first glance, they are mere sub forms of an existence. The employer looks at the employee with hunger. It is however expressed by the wetness of the eyes, the dryness of the mouth, pinching of their very own skin or undecided coughing. The employee remains sturdy like a mattress or mannequin. In saying good-bye, there’s either an official handshake or a desperate smile. This is not a matter of sexual harassment. It’s a matter of conviction.

How and when does she attack? Is it a form of reproachfulness or seduction? Is it clear by the threads bare that she is willing? He is aware but chooses not to come forth. She stands before him ready and willing. Does he claim this woman as his own or is she a wanton mistress? Clearly she wants to be manhandled. What chances does he have of maintaining his role as an employee and satisfying her innermost desires?

Their roles are never the same. The employer with her dominance replete with language formulated in choice of clothing, (less is more) cleavage, derriere, should find it in herself to feast on the impartial victory of an employee who preferred innocence on a day when he had to choose between the future and immediate sexual satisfaction.

Celibacy is a shield. Chastity is meant to cleanse the mind, body and spirit. Those who engage in it are at an arm’s length away from disappointing themselves. To them, those who are men, there isn’t a clear and logical path to take with women. What then is the conclusion when one is heterosexual?

Why death? It’s more so dependent on the circumstances one finds himself in. Karma and the psyche are very much involved. If a person is to say he attracts the very same kind of illicit women then it might be understood why he chooses celibacy. It isn’t permanent. It’s evaluated as temporary, if at that. Somehow, celibacy is an element lived in the moment. People aren’t celibate for life or are they?

Celibacy or death…Death isn’t what he desires but alarmingly it strengthens his opinion on celibacy and the liberal method with which men approach women. Celibacy or death is a political statement. More so, it’s a reaction to a current society where unscrupulous behavior is warranted. Sex to him is a philosophy. Fornication is a means to an end. Celibacy isn’t the end all be all. Certainly death is not equated.

There’s an overwhelming belief that in this the modern age, some women exist above the parameters of what is viewed as modern. Money and sex is power, leaving room for the postmodern, intellect and love.

Using the set up of a situation involving the slave and master in this circumstance presupposes the kind of subtext found in the postmodernist game of love. That it isn’t the subtext, rather it’s the decision made in the moment and time.

Does an artist seduce a muse after he has been seduced by her? How does a director carry on after he is made subservient by an actress who teaches him a brand new philosophy? Can an artist paint a model who is bent on conjuring her sexual stigma each time they meet?

In the art game one plays a lesser role. The artist is victimless unless he opens himself up to the general public. Then he subjects himself/herself to the wondrous elements of pricing the art, agents, critics and the mass media. One supposes the role of a master and a slave, teacher and student, mentor and protégé. When these roles interchange, it presents a problem. Does one bite the hand that feeds? Accounting for celibacy helps reform whatever ills remain prevalent, at first sexual but then moral.

If an artist seduces a muse, the notion must be that there is some sense of mutuality. Perhaps not, when she reveals a weakness, an illness, a disease…

Celibacy is a crown which doesn’t foresee a life-long relevance. It’s in the existence, hovering over any involvement with sex and morality. To give in to fornication isn’t the sin, more so one’s interpretation. Judging by the women one attracts it becomes a sense of morality.

To have sex or not..? That is the supposition.

No comments: