It's been a long time since I have ranted about the abysmal state of the Amairkuhn quackademy, and we're long overdue. Fortunately Mr. B. sent along the following article, and I thought, "At last, something to rant about!" but then I read the article, and I don't know whether to laugh, rant, or cry. Perhaps after I wipe the tears from my eyes and recover from my uproarious laughter, I will be able to cobble together some serious rage for a rant.
So far it's not working.
This is why:
Doubtless, you being a normal rational person, are wondering what in the name of sense "ecosexuality" is. Well, I read the whole article, and my sides still hurt from my laughter, and I still don't know what "ecosexuality" is, nor whether or not I'm supposed to care. Well, I supposed this could be understood as an attempt at clarification:
Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies professor Lauran Whitworth wrote “Goodbye Gauley Mountain, hello eco-camp: Queer environmentalism in the Anthropocene,” a study which seeks to convey the “effectiveness of queer environmental ethics in the Anthropocene, a word increasingly used to describe the anthropogenic destruction of ecosystems that marks our current geological era.” The academic journal Feminist Theory published the article.
“What do ecosexual encounters with nonhuman nature offer current discussions of environmental ethics?” she asks.
“Can ecosexuality’s posthumanist tendencies queer our speciesist modes of belonging and foster an environmentalism that is not foundationally anthropocentric nor steeped in ‘reproductive futurism’?”
"Why, yes they can!" I thought. You see, through my recent practice of enviroblitheration, a heuristic but pre-hermeutical technique of concentrated mental pretzelation, I've recently contacted my inner nitwittery, and we're making great strides in extending my consciousness. (Please note the correct term is "extended" consciousness, rather than "raised" consciousness, as the latter term is indicative of the upwardist biases inherent in the current patriarchalist narrative, which seeks to deny other expressions of psychodirectionality.) This has resulted in some stunning new perceptions and self-awareness, because in spite of my outward appearance as a white male, the ante-exegetical gymnastoneurations of enviroblitheration have convinced me that I am an oak tree, deeply rooted in the sensate greening order of the femminonurturesphere.
Armed with this new and authentic insight into the arboretum, I read on:
On their website, Whitworth notes, Stephens and Sprinkle give multiple definitions of “ecosexual,” ranging from “a person that finds nature sensual, sexy” or “takes the Earth as their lover” to “an environmental activist strategy.”
“Whereas some environmentalists expend their energy making human intercourse more earth-friendly” by promoting environmentally-friendly sex items such as chemical-free lubricants and fair trade condoms, Whitworth points out that “many ecosexuals encourage erotic encounters that are not just nature-friendly but with nature itself.”
She explains, at length, one “ecosexual” sexual encounter that Sprinkle had with a redwood tree at Yosemite National Park, as initially reported by Breitbart News.
“I loved the scent of the trunk, like vanilla mixed with soil,” Sprinkle says.
“I have a strong memory of coming across a redwood that had fallen over from a storm. I walked around off the trail and peeked at its freshly exposed roots. So soft, so sensuous, so sexy! I had to touch them.”
Well, you can imagine my shock and outrage at this blatant attempt to mysandrize the authentic chlorophyllactic expressions of my post-rational post-modern arboretum, and resubject them to the incipient gynocracy of the hypergamous hermeneutical template! While I cannot presume to speak for all oak trees, I can say, for those of us in my immediate contextual intertwined Gaiastic rootedness, we regarded this as a self-evident and obvious attempt to regulate and redistribute our minimal daily requirement of sunlight and femmobabble. We were, are, and shall remain, outraged. Our ecoconsensus led us to conclude (in a pre-rational and proto-exegetical way, needless to say) that Whitworth's article was premised on the incipenient protoperennial bias of evergreenism, and that for justice and equality to be truly and authentically served, redistribution of sunlight absorbed by perennials must be equitably redistributed in an aggressive program of affirmosolaraction to non-perennials in an authentic effort to combat the heritage of societal and cultural evergreenism and promote the oppressed phyla of arboria, which do not have the advantages of greening during periods of temporal shifts in the ambient thermal gradient, to promote genuine enviroequality.
In the meantime, we have concluded that, because of its obvious and blatant antiperennialism, the readers should think twice - in a proto-hermeneutical non-exegetical way, free of all entanglements with the hypergamous gynocratic narratives of evergreenism and its insidious offshoots (pineconeism, needlememeism, &c.) - before sending their biogenetic saplings to this institooshun of the Amairikuhn quackademy.
It's yet another one you can cross off the list.
See you on the flip side...