>I said that sex requires two free subjects.
Uranus?
>Beyond that I'll say no more because, pretty obviously our experience with
>sex...or rather, our interpretation of the same lacks any common grounds.
Well, prolly only because you've never fucked someone in the ass. But, I suspect it isn't all that different, experience wise or interpretation wise. Isn't it thrilling! We might have much common ground!
>What does my being desired have to do with objectification? Why would I be
>offended if my lover got excited by my presence?
congratulations! you like being <http://www.sou.edu/English/IDTC/Controv/Porn/hedges1.htm> Gayle Rubin might be a good start.
no one claimed that porn and legalized prostitution was the path to liberation. So, perhaps you could stop perseverating. Anthony was asking it that sex--in all it's variety--wasn't romanticized as a sphere that must be protected from the market because those who engaged in--on either side of the exchange--are somehow only there because they assume that anonymous sex and sexual representation is and can only be the result of having been warped by the vagaries of living in class society.
Kelley
"I hadde the beste quoniam mighte be"