[lbo-talk] Re: light of my life, maybe not the fire of my loins

andie nachgeborenen andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com
Sun Sep 19 23:38:14 PDT 2004


And if homosexuality were a choice and not biologically determined, it would be a disease too? As opposed to something fun people do together? You think that homosexuality is something "passively acepted"? For that matter, that kinky sex is passively accepted? (Rather than actively sought?)

Mike, your brief statement is isa real farrago of confusion It combines half-digested pop sociobiology of the most half-baked sort (biological determination of gayness) with philosophical confusion (whether gayness is OK or not depends on its being biologically determined). It uses code language about a widely practiced and harmless activity (kinky sex) -- "disease" talk, which the DSM does not accept anymore. That language of disease btw, like Chris' "sick" talk, is more threatening than the old language of moral condemnation. It calls for social intervention to wipe out the disaese and cure the offender, I mean the patient. Who made you sex doctor to the world, Mike? And somehow you manage to suggest that capitalism is caused by S&M.

Of course, you haven't any avidence for any of this foolishness, because there isn't any. You just don't like kinky sex, and think or hope that after the revo people won't like leather and latex and whips - instead of, perhaps, feeling more free to indulge in interesting and diverse sexual practices. And you only put up with homosexuality because you think that you can't do anything about it.

Don't you think that sexual puritanism is a little, um, dated here? What's wrong with the rule about consensual sexual choices among adults that what they do is up to them and nobody's business but their own? No one asks you to be turned on by handsome guys, or by high heels, corsets, and riding crops. If you're not, stay out of certain bars and shops. But leave your opinions on the shelf.

jks

--- Mike Ballard <swillsqueal at yahoo.com.au> wrote:


> --- Brian Charles Dauth <magcomm at ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
> Being a masochist or dominant or
> sadist is just as much a part of sexual orientation
> as
> being gay or
> lesbian.
> ---
> Chris responded:
> No it isn't. Being a sadist means being turned on by
> causing pain, i.e., sick in the head.
>
> ********************************
>
> The passive acceptance of dominance and submission
> rituals is key to maintaining a class society--in
> its
> modern guise, wage-slavery. This aspect of
> authoritarian psychology is nurtured socially. In
> other words, sado-masochism is a social disease.
> Homsexuality is not a social disease; it is a
> natural
> feature of genetic outcomes in the animal kingdom.
>
>
> Best,
> Mike B)
>
> =====
> "Philosophy, which once seemed
> obsolete, lives on because the
> moment to realize it was missed."
>
> Theodor Adorno, NEGATIVE DIALECTICS
> http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal
>
>
>
> _______________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
> http://vote.yahoo.com
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list