Nathan writes:
> While an argument might be made, in an expansion of Lawrence,
that certain kinds of sexuality require additional purchases to achieve
fulfillment, but I don't think that even Lawrence, a decision about
non-commercial acts in the bedroom, require by extension the
government to deregulate all commerce involving anything having to
do with sex.
Why should the government have anything to do with the choices people make in their sex lives? (Excepting where the sex is non-consensual).
> I'm old fashioned-- literally in the legal sense. I don't like courts
taking on any power to second-guess legislative decisions involving
regulation of commerce in the name of "due process" or any other concerns.
Well, isn't that what the coursts are there for? To second-guess, i.e., correct, sexphobic, homophobic and other oppressive legislative actions?
> Lochner got us full-scale court assaults on progressive legislative
regulation of the economy, and we already see "takings" and other rightwing
tropes, including "free speech" claims involving Internet commerce, ready
to return us to that era of court-enforced deregulation.
I think the left should be sophisticated enough to distinguish between areas which should be regulated and those which should not be, and, subsequently, craft effective arguments in defense of both positions. Doctrinaire tunnel vision does not help.
> Sexuality is a pretty big area-- if all commerce involving it cannot be
regulated, that's a big frigging truck for deregulatory court activists to
strike down progressive legislation.
So refreshing to see Puritanism masquerade as fear-mongering on the part of a leftist. Usually, I only see that on the right.
> Are minimum wages at Hooters Bars therefore an illegal enfringement on
consensual sexuality, based on your interpretation of how the Alabama decision
should have come out?
That is just silly.
Charles wrote:
> The idea, from a left standpoint, is that _men's_ talk can be sexist;
women's talk cannot be sexist, in general. It's not "symetrical".
More theory. Well, from my humble and limited experience in my corner of reality, sexist talk has come out of men's and women's mouths.
I think it is silly to rule a priori that some type of talk is/is not sexist. Only once the speech has occurred and had its consequences can it be deemed sexist or not. The gender/sex of the speaker is irrelevant.
> The left definition of "obscenity" starts with the issue of male supremacy
as it impinges on sex. Rape is the main left "obscenity".
This sounds like what a feminist once said to me on a panel: "All sex with men is rape since it involves penetration." Needless to say she was anti-porn as well.
Rape is non-consenual sex and violence, so it obviously an obscenity. Again, the gender/sex of the rapist is irrelevant. It is the ACTION that is the obscenity. And both men and women are capable of committing that action.
Or are you arguing that a woman is incaple of rape?
I think the left needs a new dictionary.
Kelley wrote:
> I've often found myself with a jiggler, but when I peek inside my underwear,
I do not see one!
Stop peeking!! You'll go blind.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister