One of the points that *some* 'sexual liberationists' (fucking godawful term) make is that no small part of the reason that moralistic arguments of the kind that Funboy Sullivan makes is that they are unreasonable -- that people won't actually live by them because many of these dicta are prima facie unreasonable. When Funboy goes ahead and illustrates this point for one, why not use him as an example?
Randy Andy has made a point of preaching to others what their sex lives should look like. When he turns up doing just the opposite (after slandering tons of other people for doing the same or 'less'), it shows that even a True Beliver can't manage to fullfill the unnatural demands he makes on others.
In turn, when Kelley shows up in mass media publications talking about the damage done to society by folks shoving dildoes up their lovers asses, you'll have her posts of the last few days to slam her with.
This is not about moralising, it is about showing how even the most sincere moraliser can't live by his own dicta -- and NOR SHOULD HE -- THEY ARE LARGELY STUPID RULES!
It is about questioning his whole political program, which he has expressed over and over again, but he apparently doesn't live by. If you were interested in vegetarianism, would you buy your dietary advice from a professed vegan with a side of beef hanging in her walk in freezer?
> But that's the point of the article- folks are far
more
> interested in debating personal lives than the real effects
> of policy. It's postmodern gossip sanctified by the magic
> words "the personal is political."
Pure bullshit, and I think you know it. I often disagree with you, but I don't think you stupid. I, for one, am neither 'pomo', not 'academic', nor all that enamored of "the personal is political" gig. I also agree with Kelly, your article seems like a post ripped out of here and dumped out in the 'public' out of context. What a 'media' thing to do.
[it's late, this unedited, and I'm going to bed]
--
Joseph Noonan Houston, TX jfn1 at msc.com