> >what is sex? not biological sex, but sex.
>
> Kelley, I presume you have read Fausto Sterling's book. Sex may be
> genetic, chromosomal, hormonal *or* social. Almost always, all four
> definitions are consonant (genetic and chromosomal always so, though
> hormonal and chromosomal/genetic sex not always so).
>
> I agree that social sex need not be consistent with either hormonal nor
> chromosomal sex, though in the vast majority of cases it is.
>
> What is your point?
Take another look at Kelley's post. She's talking about rates of sex. She is talking about fucking. Not quite though, because that is the question: Is only fucking sex? If group A has orgasms on the average of three times a week but two of those orgasms are from masturbation, while Group B on the average has orgasms on the average of two times per week but both are from fucking, while Group C has zero orgasms on the average but (their men being followers of D.H. Lawrence) women are teased to the brink of orgasm but then defused an average of 10 times per week, which group has more sex?
What is sex? We have to answer that question before deciding which groups in the population have more sex each week? And there is no way to reword the question to avoid the ambiguity which caused Rakesh not to understand Kelley's post because alternative wording is precisely what is at issue. That is, we can't ask which group has more fucking because we haven't decided yet whether fucking is sex or only one kind of sex or .... and so forth. So: What is sex?
Note: How do we decide (a) whether men or women have more sex? (b) whether it makes any difference whether men or women have more sex? (c) whether we count gays and lesbians in trying to decide whether men or women have more sex?
And how do we, over the filibustering of Roger and Rob and others ever get to either a historical analysis of the oppression of women *or* any discussion of the strategy and tactics of the fight against the oppression of women?
Of course Steve has been telling us today that we should forget about 99% of the working class (including of course 100% of women workers and 100% non-white workers) and concentrate on those geographical areas that hold about 1% of the total population because they are real workers.
Kelley -- Steve has shown us today that LBO can be every bit as racist as it is sexist, because it is pretty clear that for him "white [male] working class" is not just a minority of the working class but *the* working class. And not only that, but only a very small minority of that minority is really really really working class.
I suppose he agrees with those white male workers at Mitsubishi in Normal whose main energies have been supporting the right of management to harass women and blacks. Any other course on their part would show a wimpish principled attachment to that irrelevant majority of the working class which is female or minority.
Carrol