Nathan Newman <nathanne at nathannewman.org> wrote: ----- Original Message ----- From: "BklynMagus"
Nathan wrote:
> Do we really want to argue that the right to a sex toy is on an
equivalent level
>of basic human dignity? I don't think so.
-Maybe because you haven't spent much time with many SM activists.
-Being a sadist or a masochist, a dominant or a submissive is as deeply
involved
-with a person's individual human dignity as her sexual orientation.
Not everyone who does BDSM is an activist. Some people -- probably most people who do it, just do it. I'm but BrooklynMagus on this, the freedom to engage in those activities is a fundamental human right every bit as basic as your right to love a person of whatever gender or color.
In addition, lots of people who use sex toys are not into BDSM. The original vibrators were introduced as a medical treatment for "hysteria," because it was making Victorian women crazy that their men were not giving them orgasms. Thsi is actuallly literally true. Lots of women still depend on sex toys for orgasms.
Moreover, lots of couples like to playw ith toys, not necessarily in a BDSM sort of way.
> Call me an anti-consumerist puritan, but if your sexuality is completely
dependent on shopping, I'm just not going to grant it the same level of
human dignity status.
I believe the proper response is, fuck you, asshole. This is on the level of Nader's dismissal of gay rights as "gonadal politics." It's not about shopping, you jerk. How dense can you possibly be? This response is totally unworthy of a civilized human being. I haven't gone off like this at anyone in years, but this is jsut condescending bigotry of the lowest order.
If people whose sexuality requires this sort of expression could acquire what they need without buying it, whether by making it or through gifts or whatever, they'd do it. Maybe in Marx's communism ever comes about, that will happen. Meanwhile, most people who need apparatus lack the skill or material to make it. Does that mean that it's not a basic right to do what they do?
Why on earth do you think that sexuality that expressed through the unaided human body is somnehow more fundamental a right than the sexuality that requires, well, props? Why is it a basic right for a woman to use her hand to come, but not to usea jackrabbit if she can't come with her hand? Why is the sexuality of people who do vanilla sex a basic right when that of people who want or need leather or latex or chains a consumerist indulgence? What the fuck is wrong with you, Nathan?
> But in any case, I find it hard to believe that even
SM relationships are disabled by having pre-made sex toys banned, since I
suspect that such were possible in the days before prefab toys.
Great, it's a basic human right to engage in nonvanilla sex only if you don't have to buy the apparatus. I'd really like to hear your explanation of this.
> I think courts are generally there to oppress people and overturn
progressive
>legislation, destroy Reconstruction, delay New Deal reforms, and gut
affirmative
>action laws.
-But they can also be tools to help. Gay marriage came through the Supreme
Court
-of Massachusetts. Civil unions came through the Vermont Supreme Court
giving
-the Vermont legistlature an ultimatum.
> And the result has been far more states passing constitutional amendments
to make such even more impossible. Even successful vanguard court
decisions often create more backlash than actual progress. To quote an old
lefty slogan, "a victory's not really a victory if it's not really ours."
Anything granted from on high is unlikely to make fundamental change.
So where would you come out on Brown v. Board of Education? The Warren Court criminal defendant's decision? Not least, Brandenbrerg v. Ohio -- the cornerstone of free speech doctrine today?
>
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20040730/e12170b2/attachment.htm>