"On the other hand, the implicit claim is that the feeling obtainable from satisfaction of a desire for violently transgressive sex, for sex with children, for consensual sex involving treating and being treated by others instrumentally, for sex in which one is idealized, etc., etc. wouldn't be as good as that obtainable from sex involving mutual recognition. The claim, in other words, is that there is an objective basis for preferring some kinds of sex to others."
First, I think that listing "sex with children" in the same category as "transgressive sex" is the same smear tactic used by the right when they say queer marriage will lead to pedophilia.
Sorry, it just ain't so. Sex with children is different in that a child cannot give informed consent to a sexual act.
Secondly, if two people give informed consent to a sexual encounter, who is to judge that it isn't as good as some other sexual encounter? Who determines this "objective standard"? If I tie someone to a bed and whip them, I have recognized not only them, but also their desire and have fulfilled it, while at the same time they have recognized me and my own desires and helped to fulfill them. No harm, no foul. (If you really want to hurt a masochist, don't beat them.)
Maybe the problem is that Marx was unable to see the elements of recognition and value in trangressive sex. It doesn't mean that there aren't any; just that he was blind to him. The interesting thing is that he felt compelled to establish an "objective standard" for sexual feelings. What is that all about?
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister
P.S. Joanna: It doesn't make you a prude. It just makes you not kinky. LOL. If you actively tried to work against people's right of sexual self-determination, then you would be more than a prude, you could join CWA.