> >what i find loathesome is your insistence on seeing prurient discussion of
> >details that suggest lewd thoughts on the part of participants. as kim
> >pointed out, feminists have successfully managed to engage in these
> >discussions without imagining that we are lewd creeps. i don't think the
> >dildo wars and the SM wars were about satisfying prurient interests, for
> >example, but very real arguments over the nature of sexuality. they were
> >quite enlightening for me to read and i'm glad they(we) had the arguments.
>
>Well, loathe me then. Had I not known that right-wing moralists have a
>hypocrisy problem and make lives hard for those who listen to 'em, and that
>we shouldn't stick our noses into people's bedrooms unless we're asked, I
>guess I might have learned something. But, like everyone else here, I did
>know that. Can we move on now?
>
>Cheers,
>Rob.
the attribution of motivations to me and others as having a prurient interest in sullivan's sex life is loathesome. this assumes that anyone involved in the convo is getting off on the discussion of sullivan's sex life. fact is, rob, very little time was devoted to such a discussion of the details --save by way of pointing out that sullivan's response had more holes than eric's sock. and, furthermore, unless you're a mind reader i'd like to know why you think i or joe or christian or katha or anyone else who piped up to discuss sullivan's sexual rhetoric are doing so because we have lewd thoughts about the topic.
kelley