Ruby Perera's World of Sex
So having sexualised our religious beliefs, I will move on to a more material topic. The places we choose to live and the things we surround ourselves with are all fundamentally based on sex. Compare the comfy family semi to the sleek, modern bachelor pad. There is a reason for the stereotypes, and it rests on the fact that we wish our homes, like our attire, to express an image. Either 'look, I'm married with children!' or 'aiming to get laid' can be conveyed quite simply by one's living space. What would your dream home be? All those broody spinsters among you are envisaging a four bedroom detached house n the country with an aga and twin garages, while those of us who are getting some are thinking more along the lines of a stylish city apartment with leather sofas and a bath built for two. We're back to the image thing again. You are where you live, and therefore you'd better make yourself look good.
Consider choosing a room in college. Everyone wants the great big suites with bathrooms and living rooms. Pretty impressive to take someone back to, and lots of furniture to shag on. Maybe even room for a double futon if you're lucky. On the other hand, some tiny room in a 1960s hell-hole annexe is hardly likely to get anyone in the mood. An impressive room can aid pulling for many reasons. Imagine the scenario. You're chatting up a prospective shag, you invite them back to your room, and what do they see? A softly lit vision of oak panelled delight or a plasterboard pit with a single bare bulb? I think this one explains itself, really. Of course, being able to boast the merits of your room encourages visitors, and having a nice room could make you something of a social guru and generally more attractive. Hmmm, what shallow beasts we are.
There are other, much more subversive, sexual associations between buildings and their creators, and here in Oxford we could well be at the hub of seductive erections, so to speak. If you study architecture, I'd love to know exactly how much you think about sex while you work, 'cos I get the impression that some of our finest tourist attractions are actually giant sexual organs. The very phrase 'dreaming spires' is pretty suggestive, while the number of phallic constructions huddled so close together really provides something to think about. And of course, there's always the question as to whose tower is biggest. Sound familiar, anyone? The bridge of sighs makes the perfect female companion to the giant phalluses, while the Radcliffe Camera is a lone breast hemmed in by sandstone hard-ons. The juxtaposition of these towers against so much stained glass makes it seem positively hymen-like. Almost a reflection of the sex lives of most Oxford students really, ancient virginity and a mass of cocks.
Still, our appreciation of architecture is equally as sexual as the buildings themselves. As I may have mentioned before, the temptation to get it on in these historic settings has proven too much for some, and it doesn't stop at Oxford. Think about the world's most impressive buildings, and then think about having sex in or on them. The Eiffel Tower perhaps, or Sydney opera house? I'm sure the Empire State Building and the Statue of Liberty have all seen their fair share of frantic copulation. Consider the shapes of the buildings I have mentioned, all recognised as among the world's finest. All are round or pointy. Square buildings just aren't as attractive to us because they don't resemble sexual organs. Maybe you think it's all nonsense, but surely this is no coincidence? Talk about the ultimate penis extension...
1st Feb 2001