On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 catherine.driscoll at adelaide.edu.au wrote:
> I'm not totally convinced that this is about capitalism. I know everyone on
> this list will jump up and down (or jostle in their swivel chairs or
> something), but I'm going out on a limb to say I don't think absolutely
> everything is about capitalism. The circulation of images of sex, sure,
> absolutely (in fact your post reminded me of this Linda Williams book on
> porn films), I'm with you on that -- but actual sexual enjoyment does, in
> my experience, have dimensions that are at least not strictly *caused by*
> capitalism, however much capitalism may seek to mediate or profit from them.
>
> Awaiting your spectacular unravelling of my naivete.
>
> Catherine
>
Just to jump in here, though I'm sure Gordo has something to say: I'm glad to see the art of straw man argumentation is alive and well on LBO.
I think what we need to challenge here (rather than take for granted) is the distinction between "private" experience--including sex!--and the social structure in which sexual behavior emerges. It's like the artificial dichotomization of genes and environment that Gould and Lewontin ridicule. --Or the dichotomization of intellect and pleasure we've seen recently on the list.
>From the social scientist's point of view, sex is an important
social activity in all human societies, and it's perfectly
appropriate to observe, analyze, theorize, and intellectualize
sexuality.
That's not to say this intellectual pose is the best or only way to make sense of sex in everyday life; science just isn't that important. I mean, do you consult a physicist to calculate the point of greatest penetration during intercourse (yeah, phallocentric example)? On the other hand, a resourceful physicist could use bodily movements during sex to verify various physical laws (e.g., conservation of energy). --Should we make fun of the physicist for "intellectualizing" sex?
Miles