eak. And give us a break.
tough luck rakesh. i announced my intentions and meant them. fully and completely. and you explain to me why on earth i should have to apologize for 150 k in the face of kkkkkkkk over the millenia of male domination of the conversation.
that question doesn't interest you. why not? you raise questions in response to threads that have seemingly not bearing on the overt things being discussed. do i tell you to knock off, that your comment has no interest to me. or do i and others concede that you have an intellectual life shaped by your work and you raise questions that are important to you?
how is it the case that it's uninteresting to ask what sex is? why would you think that it's okay to ignore the fact that for the majority of time we've been doing sexology studies the issue of what is sex has been defined by men in such a way as to systematically exclude the sexualities of het women and queers? sexologists presumed all sorts of things like heterosexual reproductive sex and that orgasm and penetration define sex [an idea which has its roots in the book we've been arguing about that asks what is biolgoical sex and so is related to the question of what is sexual sex. had you read carrol then you would have seen that too]. the sexologists presumptions reflected wider cultural assumptions and they were blind to them. it was a presumption against which all kinds of other behaviors were defined as lacking and inadequate and deviant.
and it's unfortunate that this does not interest you because there are many consequences that result from these presumptions. [ i also told you that it would illluminate and offer a critique of your criticism of butler. but you apparently don't want to hear and learn from this example] at any rate, one very important oconsequence is this: rape for a long time and often still is defined as penetration and only that. this hasnt only damaged women who've been raped and then told that they weren't really. these attitudes have damanaged men who've been raped. obviously, it damanged the identieis of all sorts of people who couldn't or didn't have orgasmic het missionary style sex --the infirm, the disabled, queers, het women, the impotent
so tough luck rakesh. i'm going to rattle and prattle on about this in my illogical and opaque to the rational world of the male til the cows come home.
sometimes, this conversation has made me start to believe carrol. it has suggested to me that it is all quite a waste of time to even bother. it's so trivial and unimportant to the majority of the members of this list that you insist, as katha pointed out a bit ago, in turning it all to what you find interesting rather than what might be interesting from another perspective if you'd only get your heads farther up between your legs twoard the blue sky so you can take a look at the Phallus you're wielding.
kelley
and phallus btw doesn't equal your dicks