the anti sex left

Kelley jimmyjames at softhome.net
Tue Oct 22 10:23:19 PDT 2002


At 10:42 AM 10/22/02 -0700, Daniel Davies wrote:
>Which is all well and good, but without wanting to be a dick about this, I
>asked a very specific, non-rhetorical question and so far, no answer.
>Perhaps it is unfashionably reductionist of me to demand that at some point
>the rubber meets the road (or whatever else rubber might be meeting) and
>this "sex-positive" business actually translates into choices between
>courses of actions.

to me, it is sort of like the question that was once popular on the left: is there an revolutionary subject? a lot of people took that quite seriously in the 60s and 70s and felt that it was only the most oppressed of the oppressed that were the true revolutionary subject and that is where we, the intellectuals and academics, should begin. I remember one woman proudly telling me that she left academia to go work in an auto factory and stir the shit among workers. kinda leninist, ya see?

there is an essential revolutionary subject, but they just don't know. ideology blinds 'em an' all ad the intellectuals and academics know where it's at. don't waste your time on other intellectuals, go out there and herd the revolutionary subjects.

i did my undergrad thesis on the frankfurt buoyz' argument that the revolutionary subject was smashed to smithereens by bureaucratic capitalism and that, therefore, the revolutionary subject must, instead, be found among marginalized intellectuals (horkheimer and adorno) or among those who live on the margins of society in general (maybe the lumpen or Carl Remicks or sumpin), yadda.

This whole question of an essential subject was very important, in turn, to feminist theorists who'd been part of these debates on the left and who took them seriously. The woman question--is there an essential woman--a woman qua woman--that we can find beneath the bouffants, blue eyeshadow, and aviator glasses, the true essence of womanness. a woman that doesn't wash her hair with Clairol herbal Essence Shampoo because she has liberated herself from the oppression of male domination and now uses Tom's Natural Shampoo-Toothpaste-Yeast Infection Treatment-Abortifacient, has sex only with women because that's _real_ sex (there were even t=shirts about this at one point) and sex with men was tantamount to giving beelzebub a hummer while balancing a beer on your head in just the right way so he doesn't miss the game on teevee, who doesn't wear make up, shave her underarms or legs or use antiperspirant (shit. I'm running of steam for creative stereotypes here, help me out)

ya with me so far? Cause I know it seems like I'm going way out there on a big detour, but this is where, to my understanding, you need to start to understand the whole sex positive thang.

and, yes, really, i might answer your question. but you have to go through the whole thing to understand it.

kelley

Speaking of undies, just one more reason not to eat at buffets: if you get shot in the gut afterward, everyone will know what a strange appetite you have. Undie skids pale... by comparison



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list