Minus273's Weblog - MinuNews - 谈手淫?拜托! ──江老师的书评
谈手淫?拜托! ──江老师的书评 
Monday, November 13, 2006, 14:02
Reader's Guide:
1. 读一段
2. 对比该段后的quote
3. 查找S. Greenblatt文章里面的那段quote

载《万象》杂志2004年8月号

谈手淫?拜托!


——《孤独的性:手淫文化史》

江晓原
from http://shc2000.sjtu.edu.cn/0406/tanshouy.htm
words in quote from Me, Myself, and I by Stephen Greenblatt, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17015
http://xys.3322.org/xys/ebooks/others/s ... aoyuan.txt

谈论手淫需要勇气


  李敖在他的《李敖快意恩仇录》一书中有一幅插图,是一对双胞胎姊妹的裸体像,李敖自述在狱中曾对着它手淫。插图下李敖的说明文字是:“于是,那天晚上对着双胞胎姐妹,我做了一生中最痛快的一次手淫。”老实说,也就是李敖才敢这样“宣淫”,敢公然写“男女不防,颠倒阴阳,宣淫有理,我为卿狂”的文字,别的中国人,谁敢这样谈自己的手淫?明清色情小说中虽偶有写到手淫的,但以我见闻所及,从未有浓墨重彩加以描写者。

  十几年前,美国人托马斯·拉科尔(Thomas Laqueur)写了一本《制造性》(Making Sex),其中谈到,关于性差异的医学发现或发明,在广泛的领域——从科学史到性别研究,从文学批评到艺术史——都有深远影响。他发现,在17和18世纪,人们逐渐从一性模式——认为女性身体只是男性的一个劣等版本——转化为两性模式,认识到两性的生殖器官是非常不同的。也就是说,他们抛弃了古代那种认为阴道只是一个未发育的阴茎之类的观念。
Laqueur's celebrated 1990 book, Making Sex—on the medical discovery or invention of sexual difference— had a significant impact on a wide range of fields, from the history of science to gender studies, from literary criticism to art history. Discovery or invention: the shared understanding of the difference between men and women was transformed, Laqueur argued, less because of empirical discoveries than because of a complex social reevaluation. His book showed that in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries people gradually shifted from a one-sex model—in which the woman's body was viewed as a providentially inferior version of the man's—to a two-sex model, in which the organs of generation were understood to be quite distinct. That is, they gave up the ancient idea that the vagina was in effect an unborn penis [...]


  而拉科尔最新的著作,《孤独的性:手淫文化史》(Solitary Sex: A Cultural History of Masturbation),则是一部雄心勃勃的著作,要将医学史、文化史、心理学、神学、文学等等熔于一炉,为读者提供一个全面的关于手淫的文化史概要。

[...] I would invite my friend and former Berkeley colleague Thomas Laqueur, who was, I knew, working on an ambitious new book that brought together the history of medicine with cultural history, psychology, theology, and literature.
[...]
Laqueur's most recent book, Solitary Sex: A Cultural History of Masturbation, shares with Making Sex the same startling initial premise [...]


  拉科尔以他的写作和演讲,给“历史与文学”这个研究生系列讲座带来了活力。《新闻周刊》(Newsweek)杂志的摘要上说:“现代手淫大师”来哈佛演讲。但是其间也发生了奇怪的事情:在指导讨论会和提供辅导的教师中发生了严重的神经过敏。这些教师尽管深谙世情并受过较高的训练,但要他们面对和学生讨论手淫历史这样一种场景,许多人还是会脸色苍白。还有一个教师宣称,他的良心反对他指定学生阅读拉科尔的新书,或让他们参加讲座。他承认,这不是因为题目不重要,但这只应在他称之为“非强制的框架”内被讨论。粪淫没有使他们忧虑,鸡奸没有使他们犹豫,乱伦甚至使他们兴奋,但是手淫——拜托,什么都可以谈,就是别谈这个好不好?至于学生,恐慌并未在他们中出现,他们中的许多人正在看《情迷索玛丽》(There’s Something About Mary)的年纪,倒是颇有点见怪不怪。
Small wonder then that he seemed a person whose writings and lecture would enliven the semester for the undergraduates in History and Literature. In fact he did enliven the semester, but a strange thing happened along the way: there was a tremendous outbreak of the jitters. Panic set in not among the students—a large number of whom must have come of age watching There's Something About Mary— but among the core of instructors who lead the seminars and conduct the tutorials. Though sophisticated and highly trained, when they were faced with the prospect of discussing the history of masturbation with the students, many of them blanched. Coprophagia wouldn't have fazed them at all, sodomy wouldn't have slowed them down, incest would have actively interested them—but masturbation: please, anything but that.


  《情迷索玛丽》是一部相当粗制滥造的爱情喜剧影片,女主角玛丽温柔美丽,风情万种,但主要是下面这个情节确实与众不同:玛丽的另一个追求者,不怀好意地告诉男主人公,与女孩约会前应该手淫一把,这样就不会在约会时欲火中烧,难以自制,以致于在女孩面前丧失风度,男主人公听信了他的话,真的在和玛丽约会前努力手淫起来,结果精液射在自己耳朵上,闹得丑态百出。
终于不是抄这篇的了 -_-

手淫引起的焦虑


  在迈阿密新闻发布会上,克林顿总统说,他在手淫这个问题上的观点,反映了“管理政策和我自己的信念之间的区别。”
  排列一下人类的各种行为,手淫在唤起强烈焦虑方面,实际上是独一无二的。
At a Miami news conference, President Bill Clinton said that her views on the subject reflected "differences with administration policy and my own convictions." Masturbation is virtually unique, in the array of more or less universal human behaviors, in arousing a peculiar and peculiarly intense current of anxiety.


  这一焦虑,根据拉科尔观察,并不是在所有文化中都有发现,也不是西方文化遥远起源的一部分。在古代希腊和罗马,手淫可以成为一时困窘和嘲笑的题目,但它只有很少的或干脆没有医学的意义。
  拉科尔还表明,要在古代犹太教思想中发现它几乎是不可能的。但这似乎是可疑的,因为在《圣经·创世纪》第38章,我们读到俄南“将精液遗在地上,”这是一个使上帝恼火的行为,所以他让俄南死了。体外排精(Onanism)实际上是手淫的同义语,但这不是为撰写了《塔木德》和《米德拉什》的拉比们准备的。对他们来说,俄南的罪过不是手淫,而是拒绝生育。实际上更多的是指责浪费精液。
This anxiety, Laqueur observes, is not found in all cultures and is not part of our own culture's distant origins. In ancient Greece and Rome, masturbation could be the object of transitory embarrassment or mockery, but it had little or no medical or, as far as we can tell, cultural significance. More surprisingly, Laqueur argues, it is almost impossible to find in ancient Jewish thought. This claim at first seems dubious because in Genesis 38 we read that Onan "spilled his seed upon the ground," an act that so displeased the Lord that He struck him dead. Onanism indeed became a synonym for masturbation, but not for the rabbis who produced the Talmuds and midrashim. For them the sin of Onan was not masturbation but a willful refusal to procreate. [...] Some commentators [...] seem close to condemning such pleasure, but on closer inspection these commentators too are concerned with the wasting of semen.


  与此相反,中世纪基督教神学家,有着明确的概念,认为手淫是罪恶。但是拉科尔宣称,这不是一个他们特别重视的罪恶。除了五世纪约翰·卡西恩修道院(abbot John Cassian)的例外,他们更多地是考虑拉科尔所谓的社会的性之规范,而不是孤独的性之规范。修道院将焦虑集中在鸡奸,而不是手淫上;而世俗社会则更关心乱伦和通奸。宗教改革并未根本改变关于手淫的传统观念,也未强化对此问题的兴趣。新教徒激烈攻击天主教机构——修道院和女修道院,在他们看来,诽谤婚姻就是鼓励手淫。
Medieval Christian theologians, by contrast, did have a clear concept of masturbation as a sin, but it was not, Laqueur claims, a sin in which they had particularly intense interest. With the exception of the fifth-century abbot John Cassian, they were far more concerned with what Laqueur calls the ethics of social sexuality than they were with the ethics of solitary sex. What mattered most were "perversions of sexuality as perversions of social life, not as a withdrawal into asocial autarky." Within the monastery anxiety focused far more on sodomy than on masturbation, while in the world at large it focused more on incest, bestiality, fornication, and adultery. (显然没有译好,m按) [...]
[...] To be sure, Protestants vehemently castigated Catholics for creating institutions—monasteries and convents— that in their view denigrated marriage and inevitably fostered masturbation. [...]


Comments 

Add Comment

Sorry, comment disabled.