Wojtek writes:
1. Commodity fetishism - which is one of the main vehicles of capitalist colonization of everyday life;
Why is it comodity fetishism and not sexual expression?
Somebody likes to be mummified. Some prefer the feel of leather, others latex, others saran wrap, some even plaster (it is a bitch getting them out). This is not commodity fetishism -- it is merely what stirs them. To maintain that it is commodity fetishism is a puritanical attempt to de-sexualize their actions.
2. The problem of nominally free will - i.e. justification of every form of exploitation as long as the victims nominally "consents" to it, while ignoring circumstances that leave him or her with little choice (that is particularly relevant to prostitution which many believe is a "forced choice")
So following one's sexual desire is a form of exploitation?
Being a sex worker is a choice some men and women make. If some guy wants me to paddle his ass while he is wearing a soccer kit calling me "Coach," and then pay me $200, that is a forced choice?
3. Cultural imperialism and "one-dimensionalism," which creates a hegemonic corporate consumer culture at the expense of local cultures.
Huh? How is an individual's sexual self-expression a manifestation of cultural imperialism and "one-dimensionalism."
Kelley writes:
> Paul Childs is one of the most feminist men on this list and he's certainly
never indicated any sort of puritanical streak in anything he's ever
written here.
Well now he has. I have known lots of feminists who were against porn, kink, sm and expressions of non-vanilla sexuality. Being a feminist does not mean you are sexually progressive.
> Aside from that, if you read the story, the interesting part
of it was that hetmen in Japan don't find this particular form of gender
expression worthy of a woody.
So why did Paul then make a connection to Woody Allen if there is nothing sexual about it?
> In which case, simply asking him what he meant was probably better than
excoriating him for a position he probably doesn't hold.
Okay, Paul do you believe that an individual has the right of sexual and gender self-expression no matter how such expressions may squick others?
Paul writes:
Right, my mistake, Japan is nation of emancipated women and enlightened men expressing their sexuality freely, openly, in ways that are respectful and egalitarian.
> No, your mistake is in criticizing and being squicked by someone who is
willing to express their difference in such a society. If you are against
the conformity of the society, why be bothered by the actions of a
non-conformist? She said that dressing in such a manner relieved stress.
Do you have something against her relieving stress? Or is there something
wrong with the method she has adopted.
> But I didn't read anything in this article that said adult Japanese men were
dressing like pubescent boys to go to college and work.
So? This woman is ahead of the curve. Should she wait for the men to catch up before she expresses herself? Does she need their permission?
Should gays and lesbians have delayed genderfucking until heteros had started doing it?
>I have no idea what 'Proper' sexual expression is or isn't, but given my
understanding of Japanese culture this fashion trend is more in line with women
in school girl outfits in manga and Asian sex tourism (by all people, not just the
Japanese) than it is about women expressing their sexuality in an enlightened
environment.
Well, when my husband and I wear our leathers/uniforms we do so in an unenlightened environment. Does that make us unenlightened? Should we stop?
Unless you can get into someone's head and know why they are doing something, you have no idea whether they are enlightened or not. If someone likes to dress in a school girl outfit or see someone dressed that way -- what is the problem? You write as if dressing this way or having the desire to see a person dress this way was bad/wrong.
And what does Woddy Allen have to do with any of this?
> Again, when I read that Japanese men are dressing like little boys I'll stop
shuddering, in the interim, I find this disturbing. Sorry if that offends your sense of
left propriety.
Again, why men have to do it too/first escapes me.
My sense of left propriety is not offended. What is so bad about your belief is that it makes it harder for kinksters to exist (unless you are in fact against the right of sexual and gender self-expression).
Kinksters have a hard enough time -- very often being a kinkster can cost you custody of your children in a divorce case or, even if there is no problem, you can be deemed unfit parents by puritanical social workers.
Genderfuck is a powerful tool of the left. To shudder at it seems peculiar.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister