Nathan writes:
> And a conservative would rightly respond, why is this a more fundamental
right than my right to run my business as I choose, as long as everyone I
associate with consents to the arrangements?
I think Doug effectively answered this point. Running a business is clearly a subsidiary right to sexual self-determination since running a business involves so many other persons and considerations.
> The question is not whether laws banning sex toys are stupid -- we agree
that they are-- it's whether it's a good idea to give courts greater and
greater power to override democratic decisions, a power they have
constistently abused over the decades.
Democratic decisions need to be overriden when they are homophobic/sexphobic and oppressive.
> No-- but maybe you should insult allies who agree with you on policy just
because they disagree with you on tactics.
I criticized you not on the basis of your tactics, but on the basis of your dismissive and denigrating attitude toward the right of sexual self-determination. You displayed no comprehension whatsoever of the vital nature of this right to people's lives.
> If this is how you treat someone who agrees with you 100% on what the
policy should be, how do you expect to create alliances with people who
actually disagree with you, but might be willing to build coalitions based
on mutual respect and coalition building.
But you do not agree 100%.
> The whole worship of legalism and constitutional strategies is all about
self-defeating single issue politics, not in the sense that all those issues
aren't vitally important, but in the sense of claiming a right to pursue
that single issue without regard to building alliances or how your strategy
might impact or hurt other people.
The sad fact is that most non-queer/non-kinky leftists avoid alliances on sexual issues. Alliances are wonderful, but you need willing, respectful partners to join the dance.
Jenny writes:
> Look, there's a context here. Men are always telling women what to do,
what to say, how to act.
Really? I cannot remember the last time I told someone, male or female, how to act. I may criticize, but I do not command that they follow my way.
> Enough already and now we're getting criticized by men for not being
sufficiently non-sexist, anti-sexist?
Anti-sexist speech should be criticized no matter what the provenance of the speech. It poisons the public sphere.
> Ah, but it doesn't. In fact it *is* the kind of pedantic bullshit purity
(e.g. R. criticizing Kelley for using the terms 'chick' and 'dick' a few
weeks ago) that you say don't like.
That makes no sense. If criticizing sexist speech is sexist, then there is no point in analyzing/criticizing any type of speech since the analysis/criticism is just more of the same pollutant (according to this view).
> I thought you also didn't like theory that doesn't play out in reality.
I'm telling you this theory doesn't, because it *doesn't actually* have the
effect of decreasing sexist crap because in fact that is what it is, adding
to it.
The theory that I do not like is the circular logic you have posted. Before the fact, you label certain speech sexist, thereby negating the need to examine the effect such speech has in reality before labelling it. Sometimes speech will be sexist, sometimes it will not be. It depends on how it is delivered in the particular moment. Its effect cannot be predicted beforehand. If the consequences of speech could be predicted beforehand, there would be no need to speak.
> Nathan writes:
> Given all that, I just find it hard to take seriously the argument that
the rights suppressed by this decision are on the same order as bans on
abortion or on consensual gay sex.
Why? If reproductive centers were banned from advertising would you think that was a serious violation?
> I still think the law's dumb, but if Alabamans don't like seeing sexually
explicit dildo advertisements in their local newspapers, I think it's just
incredibly stupid left tactics to make a stand on that issue or encourage
courts to override popular laws in that area.
No, it is not stupid. People have to realize that there is no right not to be offended. Part of the leftist agenda should be (in my opinion) making the public sphere safe for sexual speech, both commercial and non-commecial.
> My dismissiveness is that I think the priorities, political and
constitutional, of a chunk of the left is out of kilter. That part of the
left prefers to highlight issues like the right to advertise dildos, which
is inherently going to piss off potential progressive allies, while
spending relatively little time talking about issues like the minimum wage,
where something like 80% of the population support's the progressive
position.
So we should cater to sexphobes in order to have allies? Or to put it another way (and I'll play the "definition/theory-before-reality" game for once), no progressive allies would be put off by the fight for the right of sexual self-determination, would they?
> A lot of the left seems incapable of any discussion of tactics and
strategy, and proceed to insult even people who agree with them on goals if
they want to discuss better tactics for victory.
I love to discuss strategy and tactics. What I dislike are leftists who want to shove sexual issues (which are often difficult and treacherous) back into the closet.
Dennis writes:
> Dialectics, especially in its post-Adorno phase, recognizes no
hierarchies. Adorno: "...solely as a micrology does it [dialectics] employ
macrological means." (Negative Dialectics, 40, my translation). The small,
insignificant, most transient of things are often more important than the
grand narratives of Geopolitics and Capital.
Okay, that I can understand and agree with (though I am still not sure I understand Adorno). I started to read Eros and Civilization this weekend (found it in a used book store for a few dollars and it looked interesting). I know Marcuse was associated with Adorno, but he seems easier to comprehend (at least to me).
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister