Thomas Seay:
> Yes, I should like to hear that one myself.
> Some leftists say the darndest things!
I think this was in reference to prostitution. So the question is, What is meant by "sex" or "sexual"? We're not talking about the method of reproduction, and we might not be talking about a lot of the sensual, emotional and social facts generally associated with sexuality, in which sex is generally located and defined. Typically, at least according to the prostitutes and their customers with whom I've talked or whose work I've read, the sensual and emotional elements present are quite different for both the prostitute and the john, from what they would be in the case of a conventional romantic encounter. (I'm assuming here one does not see prostitution as a form of romance.)
One might rather see the erotic as branching off into parallel, resonating, yet distinct forms, one of which would be sex in the sense of love, boyfriend-girlfriend, marriage and orgy stuff, and another into power/commerce, as with prostitution and some forms of S&M. Of course I'm supposing that eros, the will to live and enjoy, precedes rather than follows the evolution of sex, power games, and commerce, in both phylogeny and ontogeny, so that the _erotic_ is the root of both.
And pro football, too, if you like. There could be a considerable similarity between the genealogy of pseudo- sex performances and pseudo-play performances under the aegis of commerce and employment.
I'd proceed with this further, but I'm afraid I'm going to set off another fit of giggling. One must go forward cautiously, eh?
-- Gordon