Maria writes:
> Leftists, in the interests of that which most promotes human
contentment and sense of well-being, should certainly be more
sex-positive in general, or at least admit it matters some. <G>
As to one's sexuality being a core issue for one's *identity*, I
hesitate to agree that is true across the board.
Why would you hesitate? All the science/research I have read says human beings have basic biological needs for food, water, salt and sex. (I don't know why they never mention sleep; maybe it is just I am a big fan of naps). I would add from my own experience, the need for shelter and the need to alter one's consciousness through outside stimulation, but I have not read anything to confirm this.
To ask a question after the fashion I have learned from Carl and Charles: what materialist evidence would you propose to justify your hesitation? (And I in no way think you are the only person with this hesitation).
> I don't believe I am being a "pleasure hater" for believing that
it's more important to eat, have a safe place to live, and medical
care when you're sick, than it is to have access on demand to sex
toys.
I think human beings can be seen as having a nucleus of six needs. All arise from having bodies. The first four needs are hardwired into human beings: the needs for food, water, salt and sex. The next two arise out of the fact that humans have bodies: shelter for protection and medical services for maintenance and repair of those bodies.
I see no reason to construct a hierarchy of these needs. They are all equally vital for the survival of a human being.
I think it is good that you are not a "pleasure hater," but I think it is important to see if your actions and their consequences in this area are distinguishable in practice from those of a pleasure hater.
Also, this is issue is about more than the desire to have access to sex toys. If you accept sex as vital to a human being's life, then they should be allowed to pursue sex as they see fit (within the bounds of consenuality). Of course, if you do not see sex as vital, or believe that in the areas of food, shelter, sex, etc. people should be proscribed in their options, then your diminution of the issue is logical.
> Some people ascribe a mystical power to sex (just like some people
seem to ascribe a mystical power to just about any powerful sensory
experience that comes the way of humans) that I don't;
Agreed. But I am not advocating for the centrality of sex on mystical grounds, but rather materialist/scientific ones.
jks wrote:
> Meanwhile we can do important things in the courts, The CCR and the
ACLU just put a big dent in the Patriot Act, for example -- by a lawsuit.
Kinksters and sex radicals have also been pursuing (and funding) the overturning of the CDA. It has been very difficult to get vanilla leftists to support the effort since they do not want to be seen as being pro-pornography for children.
> Nathan, to whom I owe an apology for an intemperate outburst, is a bit
of an all-or-nothing thinker. The courts are utterly useless, stay out of them.
The economy is the only important issue, forget sexuality (for one). Seems
to me that we need more nuance and sensitivity to context.
For me one of the main problems with Nathan's extremism is that the positions he he advocates have consequences that are indistinguishable from the results our enemies want to achieve.
For me we have to start first with human beings and their needs and craft an economy around them. Nathan seems to want to conceive of and implement an ideal, theoretical economy which will then dictate a hierarchy of needs to which human beings should conform.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister