Thursday, February 28, 2008

Sex in the very beginning...from my perspective

Seeing that this is the first official post of A BIT O'MUSLIN, I thought it only fair I commence from the very beginning (I'll jump back and forth later to make it more exciting, I promise). So here's a question. Except for all the cave drawings, fossils, skulls and what archaeologists speculate, could we really give an accurate perspective to prehistoric days? Especially with regards to how men and women interacted? Would we really want an accurate perspective? The Clan of the Cave Bear by Jean M. Auel is about the only interesting attempt I've come across, though it'll be fun to see what Hollywood (bless their little hearts) will do with the upcoming movie 10,000 B.C. Will it even be believable? Either way, if we, at the year 2008, are as civilized as we can be in our understanding of emotional and sexual relationships...HOLY CRAP, I can only imagine how civilized we were in the year 10,000 B.C.!! Maybe that's why historical romances only go so far back in history? But that's a whole other post. 

Now because there really aren't any genuine prehistoric stories I can dissect, I am going to tackle one of the earliest stories known by man. A story known to many. A story that I feel should be re-written. The story of Adam and Eve. WARNING: IF YOU ARE A RELIGIOUS PERSON, I AM ASKING YOU TO STOP READING RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW. BECAUSE I WILL NOT TOLERATE POSTS TELLING ME I'M GOING TO HELL. THAT'S FOR GOD TO DECIDE, NOT YOU. That being said, here we go. As children, we all nod along to whatever dogmas are taught to us. I most certainly nodded. And how. Women came from the male rib? Oh yes, but of course, they did. Adam's excuse for sinning? Why, because Eve forced that apple upon him. Why, that makes SO much sense. Then in high school, I stopped nodding. And instead, I started asking questions. Too many it seems, for the nuns were growing rather upset with me. I was at the age in which I knew what happened between a man and a woman. And I wanted to know. Was the apple the symbol of Eve's vagina? Yes, laugh, but from a budding writer's perspective I simply couldn't help but point out all of the inaccuracies in the story. I mean, here is Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden and there are no kids. No babies. At all. Why? Why didn't paradise include children? (And no, if you are a parent, you aren't allowed to answer that) Certainly Adam and Eve had been in the garden long enough to have had children. Or was there something more sinister being written into the story? That sex itself IS the original sin. Hence, the saying, we are "born" of original sin. The sign of no babies meant they were not having sex. I decided to re-write the story of Adam and Eve and hand it in as one of my "creative" assignments (Seriously. The nuns did not find it in the least bit amusing. Here's a crude overview.) A snake comes along (notice the phallic symbolism? Of course you do) and tells Eve about THE apple. Her vagina. And that her vagina isn't all that bad. Rather, it is something meant to be enjoyed. Tasted. So Eve thinks about it and decides to "try" the apple. Yes. I am saying she actually masturbated and LOVED it. Then Adam comes along and says, "What in paradise are you doing?!" And she's replies, "Enjoying my apple." Do I need to finish the rest of the story for you? Of course I do. So Adam, being the greedy bastard that he is, does more than bloody try the apple, he eats every last bit of it while sticking his fingers and his rod wherever it can go! And the result? Sex. And a profound understanding that their nakedness allows them to not only have sex, but also enjoy it. Which is bad. Very, very bad. Yes...but from whose perspective exactly? 

I couldn't quite figure that one out. Because if God saw procreation as bad then why would he give us sexual organs? Surely not as a way to "test" us? No wait. He did that a lot, didn't he? Anyway, so out of paradise Adam and Eve are flung. They continued their "bad" habits and populated the entire planet. And if it weren't for them, we wouldn't be here. At all. Indeed. I guess what I tried to do is not make myself believe I had created a new form of dogma (heaven forbid), but rather acknowledge that even in the earliest forms of writings, men controlled women's sexuality. And the smart lass that I was, I discovered this at the age of 15 and was trying to come to terms with it. For this very reason, history has both miffed and fascinated me. For the worst part about history is that it's done. Over. There is absolutely nothing one can do to re-write all that male dribble and drama....OR IS THERE? Ah! Do you see where this is going? That is when I discovered a secret. No matter the era, I, a writer, can create a heroine who can strive to live outside the sexual and moral dogma ingrained since the beginning of time (within the context of history, of course). And in doing so, find myself adding a creative little form of history that makes me quite happy. So now, when someone dares ask why I bother to read and write "trashy, pornographic" historical romances, to them I have no choice but to say, "Because I desperately feel the need to make up for all the poor women in history who never knew love and who never had the pleasure of experiencing a damn good orgasm. That's why." So now I turn this historical perspective to you. Why do you read and/or write historical romance? And no, you cannot use my answer....