>>> "Frances Bolton" <fbolton at chuma.cas.usf.edu> 02/11 12:41 PM >>>
>Charles: Yea, I didn't mean to say that those posts were comprehensive
discussions. I was speaking more specifically of the 60's sex lib movement, and of the dimensions that don't seem to be discussed anymore. It's like they have been silenced or tabooed. People don't even talk about it. It is an amazing example of sexual repression and thorough counterrevolt.
I think the problem with the 60s sex lib movement was that it became the 70s. Meaning, it almost immediately became surburbanized, controlled, commodified, about consumption rather than liberation. Another reason for its repression is of course the AIDS outbreak. But returning to the first, I wonder if there was some flaw in what was going on in the 60s that left the movement so open to being appropriated and sanitized by the swinging bourgeois. ______ Charles: Indeed, the movement had strengths and weaknesses, and some of the latter was that it was a heavily petit bourgeois movement especially in its articulating members which is a vulnerability to bourgeois corruption. Like (like they said in the 60's) the labor movement has had strengths and weaknesses, the civil rights/Black power movement. You know the rest. This movement has gone underground more than the others.