“If you go home with someone and they don’t have books, don’t fuck them.” – John Waters
I’ve seen this quote in many a meme circulating on the Internet, and I have to admit that it bothers me on many levels.
To start with, it’s an oversimplification. This quote is the kind of thing that I’m sure many fuckbois have misconstrued as a reason to pick up weird looking books at the thrift store. Just because someone owns books doesn’t mean they’ve read them. It’s worth making sure that those books are real and not just stage props, in both a real and metaphorical sense.
I had a roommate who stacked his shelves full of obscure French philosophy and vintage books on Mesoamerican studies and relevant, trendy fiction. Occasionally I would see him lounging around with a book, but, in all honesty, I don’t think he ever touched most of the books he bought. But they were there, hoarded in piles all over the house. He did fuck several graduate students from Cal, so I guess it worked.
As someone who is obviously literate enough to run an entire blog and get published in the local paper, I must admit that equating someone’s literacy to their fuckability is just…icky. It touches on the even ickier subject of sapiosexuals, or people who fetishize other’s intelligence as a sexual trait. Personally, I find sapiosexuals to be elitist bull shitters. In many ways it’s condescending and classist to equate someone’s sexual worth to their literary intelligence. The public school system doesn’t really afford poor people and people of color an adequate education, and sapiosexuality in turn shames people for not having access to adequate education.
Speaking of adequate education, there are eight types of intelligence and academia and the modern school system tend to only reward two of those eight types of intelligence: verbal-linguistic and logical-mathematical. In fact, our entire society rewards those two types of intelligence higher than any other type, as is revealed through average salaries.
The other six types of intelligence that are routinely ignored and undervalued are: musical-rhythmic and harmonic, visual-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic.
In many ways, the above quote reinforces a capitalist approach to intelligence and by extension relationships. If someone doesn’t have books, he probably isn’t very smart, and if that person isn’t smart, then they have no sexual value to me. Because if you read the above quote, it’s not even referring to relationships – it’s referring to fucking someone, probably for a one night stand.
I don’t know about you, but when I’m having a one night stand, my #1 priority is good sex. I don’t understand how someone’s literacy is any indicator of their ability to eat pussy.
In fact, from my personal experience, I find that people who are caught in the trappings of being successful according to capitalist standards spend too much time valuing themselves by their intelligence or their income and tend to focus less on their emotional intelligence, both interpersonal and intrapersonal. School and career tend to distract from social pursuits, and less socially experienced people tend to be less sexually experienced, and less sexually experienced people bore me.
I’d rather hook up with someone who has good taste in music. If you can make me laugh and make me cum, I don’t really care about whether or not you even know how to read. I’m here to fuck, not to start a book club or engage in political discourse.
You can take your books and burn them for all I care. I don’t think there’s any point in fetishizing a book as an object that indicates someone’s personality, intelligence or sexual prowess. Look me in the eyes and tell me you love me while you make me cum. That’s all I need.