To: Ilaine who wrote (29454 ) 1/31/1999 12:03:00 AM From: E Read Replies (1) | Respond to
Blue, I said explicitly that it contained sex! and also humor, and wit, and that it was funny, and that it wasn't mean or hurtful. "Bawdy" is what I might have called it. I certainly agree that nihil produced a little piece of written humor to "make a point, literarily, psychologically."ethically objectionable in that fragment, in this conversational forum (which is for adults, is most casual and far ranging, and is often characterized by a highly personal and informal sort of humorous, light, banter). I think , please correct me if I'm misunderstanding, that you are equating sexuality with prurience, and assuming that if I deny prurience I deny sexuality.dog , by pointing out the ways in which he has never been reported to behave as does a male dog! It was an installment in an ongoing, and I thought generally amusing, group parody of a highflown philosophical discussion! I was amused by the conceit embodied in the exchange in general, and by nihil's literary descent from the parody-sublime to the utterly ridiculous. Incongruity is the essence of humor! It was incongruous, this comparison of the great Socrates to a male dog, as proof he was not one (!), and made an amusing point by its very incongruity. In so far it as could be experienced as 'prurient,' it was a joke part of the subject of which was incongruous 'prurience', wasn't it?
