On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:09:31 -0400 Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu> wrote:
> Why do you think that heterosexism = "sexuality"? No sexism, no sexuality?
No heterosexism, no sexuality? Is it the oppression of women & "sexual
deviants" that makes human relations "sexy" for you?
That isn't what I said. The abolution of heterosexuality will not necessarily lead to liberative forms of sexuality. My point was that it is more likely that he abolution of sexuality will emerge as a new and more hegemonic form of heterosexuality. As for the eroticization of power, I suspect as long as human beings are passionate beings, power will always be eroticized in one form or another. Domination *is* sexy. That's precisely *why* it needs to be contested and politicized. When we consider the notion of beauty, we are seeing something in the beautiful that is not what it is. This is the monsterous aspect of the beautiful - not unlike the anamorphosis that is illustrated by Holbein's Ambassadors (reciprocity and diplomacy is a skull).
Tell me something, after the revolution, will people still fantasize? or will everything be pure and good and true? My impression, based upon what you have written to the list, is that something is brewing and when it bubbles over all will be transformed. Fine enough, maybe a bit metaphysical, but fine enough. I'm worried, however, that human beings will not be able to recognize themselves after such transformations. It seems to me that you seem to think that enough concepts will be rendered obselete as to make what we know today as meaningful communication will cease to exist. This seems to me to be a higher level of alienation than anything else...
ken