Whores´ Dialogues. A kind of erotic and satyric literature from the Renaissance that influenced the erotica produced in Europe thereafter. It usually comprised of women talking to each other, usually an older to a younger, be it a whore or a married woman to a maiden or a young wife. They discuss their roles in life, their bodies, ways to please themselves and their lovers. Some depict only titillating conversations while others describe women pleasing themselves and each other, praising the practice of masturbation and of tribadism.( obscenity erotic fiction )
They were written by men, as far as I know, and are far from the ideal of women talking about their own sexuality. They were all about men, their experiences with women, their fantasies, an opportunity to use the brothel and sexuality as satire tools to mock public figures, mainstream ideas, social constraints and, well, make some money. For such material sure
Since humans exist, there is a market for sex and all things related.
The so called whore could be a superior in an ecclesiastic order, or a prostitute hired to groom a maiden to her future life as a wife. Anti clericalism, criticism to celibate, to women´s sexual submissiveness, to class distinction, they all permeate these books. Why? So many scholars have studied these books already! I don´t believe my ideas would matter, although they matter to me.
“Extremely rare first edition, fourth variant (variant ‘V’), of a classic of seventeenth century erotic literature, the masterpiece of the celebrated satirist Ferrante Pallavicino (1615 –1644). Published anonymously in Venice with a fictitious Cambrai imprint, The rhetoric of whores is a ferocious anti – Jesuit work in which the 15 lessons of the standard Jesuit rhetoric textbook, Cipriano Suarez’s De arte rhetorica , are turned into lessons given by an experienced old prostitute to her young disciple. ‘More than any of his other books, The rhetoric of whores demonstrates why Pallavicino was the only Italian author of his epoch capable of a coherent vision that integrated satire, scepticism, and naturalistic morality . . . . Although Pallavicino claims in his introduction to be writing a morality tale about the false lures of commercial sex, he fooled no one, least of all the Inquisitiors of the Holy Office. It is obvious that the “artificial lies” , “deceptions” (inganni), and “wickednesses” (ribalderie) of the courtesan were also the principal ingredients in a Jesuit education . . . . By systematically pursuing the parallels between rhetorical persuasion and erotic seduction, Pallavicino demonstrates how the high art of rhetoric has the same instrumental character as the lowly deceptions of the prostitute’ (Edward Muir,The culture wars of the late Renaissance: skeptics, libertines and opera, 2007, pp. 90 94).
Sometimes I see myself as one of those “whores”, as one of those female protagonists. I don´t live the dichotomy saint/prostitute in my sexuality, because whatever I fantasized was tainted by dysmorphia and all I could see was absolutely repellent that my problems with sex did not stem from morality but from the kind of disgust one feels for things rotten, only directed to my own body, to the way I objectively saw it; and my late blooming happened with joy and acceptance of sex as a desirable fact of life, something that made me happy, by the accident of an anti psychotic drug that showed me that things could be different. Of everything that could have gone wrong, that ended being much easier to me than to most other women.
When I say I am protagonist of such books, I mean that I can be a good conversationalist, with a good range and an acute perception of my interlocutors. I am open to experiment, and to feel my partner in sex and in conversation, so it is a full exchange and in communication theory, a complete dialog.
Talk flows, witty, sharp and it is sexy after a fashion, cause it brings us closer, breaks down resistances, enhances trust and make us admire each other, stoking the fire of curiosity. Rather than seduction, this my way of saying: world I am here, fuck me, possess me, know me, let me feel you.
But isn´t rhetoric a form of deception? Isn´t it seduction? Here is where I differ from Pallavicino. It is and it isn´t. It serves a purpose, it is a tool, a form of expression, but it is not expression itself, it needs something to give it sense, purpose, body and weight. It may carry truth forward with its technique, or may be empty and beautiful, like a young prostitute. I am the old one, too old to care about anything but some form of truth.
The rhetoric of my mind speaking in chorus with my body, the whole of my existence in this planet, with my pain, my sorrows and my few outlets of pleasure.
And I am this lady in the orgy, both a girl and an aged woman, take me as I am: I am yours, your private puttane, as good as a jesuit, one and the same, you can fuck me, and you can talk to me and learn from and with me. I am whole.