On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 15:40:13
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>At 2:25 PM -0400 10/22/02, Anthony Kennerson wrote:
>>IMHO, the term "sex-positive" simply means being respectful to the
>>choices of consenting adults regarding their particular exploration
>>of sex and sexual material, including their right to consume and
>>produce sexually explicit material.
>
>That's basically liberalism 101. No need to recapitulate it here.
Oh, now, this is really funny. I guess that the "radical" view according to Yoshie must be that sexual desire must ALWAYS be subverted to whatever politically correct fad is in power at the moment??? Gee, I always though that respect for other people's sexual desires and experiences happened to be simple common sense; I didn't know that it all of a sudden became a reactionary "liberal" trend to some leftists.
>
>>The point about "sex-positivity" is the acceptance of the basic fact
>>that most human beings do have sexual thoughts and fantasies, and
>>that they should be allowed to be expressed with the utmost respect
>>for the feelings of others....including (or to be more accurate,
>>ESPECIALLY) those that do not share their particular fantasies,
>>behaviors, or tastes.
>
>If you put too much premium on "the utmost respect for feelings of
>others" (which naturally includes the utmost respect for feelings of
>the most conservative) as a requirement for publication of sexual
>expressions, you in effect concede much ground to those who prefer
>the strait and narrow.
Oh, I see....respecting sexual diversity is conservative now??? What does that mean, Yoshie....that trashing sex radicals and confining sexual expression to narrow bounds (however "progressive" they may sound) is revolutionary??? Besides, in the real world, we have to live and work with people who do not share our particular lifestyles or political opinions. We have to respect those who indeed do choose the straight and narrow....even while we fight for the rights of those who follow the kinky and wide. It's those who would IMPOSE the straight and narrow on everyone else whom I oppose. Not everyone can be as radical as you, Yoshie...or me. (And I'm definitely NO liberal, either...I wouldn't be joining this list if I was one, now, wouldn't I???)
>
>>I no more want a strip club in my neighborhood than the next guy
>
>It's probably through the concentration of private property in fewer
>hands that much of censorship of expressions, not just sexual
>expressions, gets accomplished. Not in my franchise, not in my
>shopping mall, not on my TV channel, not in my newspaper, etc....
>That's the limit of liberalism.
>--
>Yoshie
>
Really, Yoshie??? Do you really think that anti-sexual censorship -- or other forms of censorship -- is only a figment of mulitnational capitalism??? And capitalism is certainly a lot more than the sum of multinational corporations; a local co-op can act as greedy and brutish as any large corporation. (Actually, I'm not opposed to strip clubs in general, only placing them in neighborhoods.)
Yes, indeed, liberalism does have its limits....but that's no reason to demonize radicals who support greater sexual expression as part of their overall policy.
Oh...and one last thing, Yoshie: Just because I happen to be interested (or as some have put it, "obsessed") with sexuality and the Left's -- oops, some leftists' -- convoluted relationship to it does not in any way disregard my concerns in other concerns near and dear to the radical program. I no more favor power in the hands of the few at the expense of the masses than the next socialist; but I simply state that by writing off the majority of the population simply because they don't share your particular theory, your chances of building a legitimate popular left that can really effect change becomes nearly nil.
To paraphrase the popular saying: The Puritan's tools will not liberate the capitalist's house.
Anthony
____________________________________________________________ Get 250 full-color business cards FREE right now! http://businesscards.lycos.com