On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 18:14:48
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>At 4:57 PM -0400 10/22/02, Anthony Kennerson 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.
>
>Liberalism is not reactionary -- it's simple common sense. That's
>why there is no need to recapitulate it here.
OOPS....my bad!!! lol At first I thought that you were using a tack that is used by some erotophobic leftists to write off sex-positives as weak liberals. I take back that earlier statement.
>
>At 4:57 PM -0400 10/22/02, Anthony Kennerson wrote:
>> >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???)
>
>What is sexual diversity? The sexually conservative -- for instance,
>those who are opposed to abortion, homosexuality, public exhibition
>of nudity (including women's breasts) in art or in reality, etc. --
>are surely part and parcel of today's landscape of sexual diversity
>in the United States. In this sexually diverse America, what does it
>mean in practice to pay "the utmost respect for feelings of others,"
>including the feelings of the most conservative?
>
>Do medical providers, who are opposed to abortion, have the right to
>withhold information about abortion from women who seek it? Do they
>have the right not to perform abortion, even to save the life of a
>woman in need of it? Should access to abortion be publicly funded,
>covered by Medicaid and other forms of health insurance? In
>campaigning for universal health care, should we exclude abortion
>from coverage, to avoid controversy? If so, why? If not, why not?
Again, I cede your point. Just because I recognize the choices of the sexually Puritanical doesn't mean that I won't oppose to my least breath their reactionary agenda. Of course, I'm for universal health care, including access to abortion (I may personally dislike the procedure, and would really prefer preventing unwanted pregnancy to begin with, but I'm a staunch believer in an adult woman's right to choose abortion). I simply see in my pro-sex politics -- insofar as much as my other leftist politics -- a means of fighting them. And you cannot deny the basic fundamental fact that most right-wing opposition to abortion and contraceptives are rooted in the same foundation as their opposition to "deviant" sexual material/behavior: a grotesque fear of their own repressed sexuality. I'm for diversity of sexuality and sexual expression, NOT diversity of ideology; quality of arguement still counts for me.
>
>At 4:57 PM -0400 10/22/02, Anthony Kennerson wrote:
>> >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.
>>
>>Really, Yoshie??? Do you really think that anti-sexual censorship --
>>or other forms of censorship -- is only a figment of mulitnational
>>capitalism???
>
>I'm not saying that anti-sexual censorship is "only a figment of
>multinational capitalism." Those who own nothing may very well
>attempt censorship -- it's just that those who own nothing probably
>have much less power to accomplish what they want, whereas those who
>own the means of production have the most power to shape public
>discourse. Can you think of many movies and TV programs that have
>portrayed a woman having abortion without much suffering? Can you
>think of TV programs in which gay and lesbian characters have lovers
>with whom they have passionate sex? As a matter of fact, though,
>despite the still narrow range of acceptable sexual expressions on
>the corporate media, the corporate media have come to profit from a
>much wider range of sexual expressions than before, whereas those who
>oppose capitalism and imperialism can still safely expect to be
>excluded from them. There is no right to free speech at work either.
Oh my Goddess....what have I done???? Here I am bashing a person who actually thinks the same way I do!!! You are exactly right about the corporate media and how they use sex for their own profits; however, there is still a limit to what they will offer. And you are right about the obvious fact that traditional leftist concerns are essentially off the table as far as our media are concerned. Sure, capitalism has an uncanny ability to coop social movements; which is one more reason why sex-positive leftists need to become more outspoken and involved in critique of the system of oppression.
>
>At 4:57 PM -0400 10/22/02, Anthony Kennerson wrote:
>>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.
>
>I don't write off the majority of the population. I'm simply asking
>what it means in practice to respect the feelings of the most
>sexually conservative. No breast-feeding in public, no sex education
>that does not preach abstinence in public school, etc., in case the
>feelings of the most sexually conservative get offended by them?
>--
>Yoshie
Let me clarify myself, Yoshie....I respect conservative sexual choices; I have NO respect for conservative sexual POLITICS. In fact, I happen to believe that integrating a more positive viewpoint of sex into leftist politics would go a long way in winning over those in the majority who have never been exposed to progressive politics, but who may be open to challenging their conservative upbringings. (Hey, I was raised in a very conservative Catholic household myself; I really educated myself to resist the hold of Puritanism over me.) I really don't care if the Puritan Right get offended by what I say or do, since what THEY do and have done to the majority of people for so long have been so much worse.
Memo to myself: Read before you react, fool!!! You might miss the point!!!
Thanks, Yoshie, for finally setting me straight. :-)
Anthony (Imperialism and Capitiaism Suck As Much As Puritanism!!!)
____________________________________________________________ Get 250 full-color business cards FREE right now! http://businesscards.lycos.com