I also find somewhat interesting this notion of 'having sex,' as if it were a meal someone sat down to, and not an activity requiring the mutual participation of two people
>Kelley:
> >consider, of course, all that's involved in getting to the point where one
> >imagines that having a meal is a passive activity to begin with.
> >geez.
> >kelley
>
>Geez, indeed. For all of your obsession with Habermas, you have a pretty
>shallow conception of intersubjectivity. The distinction here is hardly
>between one of active and passive. Assuming that one wants to talk in
>essentialist terms about a national sexuality to begin with, a sexual
>relationship which involves [at a minimum] two people, one from the USSR
>and one not, is clearly not USSR sex, but international sex. By contrast,
>one can experience the food/cuisine of another nation in much a less
>mediated way, since the nature of the food itself does not change with the
>person who eats it. Why does the mere mention of sex always put you into
>this active-passive mode of thinking?
>
>Leo Casey
>United Federation of Teachers
>260 Park Avenue South
>New York, New York 10010-7272
>212-98-6869
>
>Power concedes nothing without a demand.
>It never has, and it never will.
>If there is no struggle, there is no progress.
>Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation are men who
>want crops without plowing the ground. They want rain without thunder and
>lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters.
>-- Frederick Douglass --
>
>.