Charles writes:
> I tend to refer to sexual liberation.
Okay -- no need to get hung up on terminology. As the Buddha said: don't confuse the finger pointing at the moon with the moon.
> How do your ideas about getting rid of the self (sorry I forgot exactly
how you put what you say about the "self") impact sexual SELF-expression?
Here again is the link to the Hume/Buddhist article -- maybe it can help.
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/james1.htm
> To me, sexual self-expression reminds of freedom of speech, speech as
self-expression.
Well, it may remind you, but it is not what I am speaking of. I'll use the term "sexual self-determination" from now on. Hope that helps.
> The analogy continues when you emphasis what people do alone is of no
concern to others.
I did not say it was of no concern. I said it caused no harm to others. I think sexual liberation/sexual self-determination can only be achieved if people are concerned with the issue.
> This is alright as far as it goes, but then I also think if we are talking
about expression, sexual or verbal, that by definition will have no impact
on anybody else, then actually society has no interest in prohibiting it _or
protecting it_.
We are talking about self-determination as well which I believe society has a definite interest in protecting/promoting.
> What do I care whether or not somebody can have s and m sex or not?
If you don't, you don't. That is your choice. Also, it is sm, not s&m (you don't say "sado and masochism").
> Why should I go to a demonstration, or write a letter to the editor, et
al. for someone's freedom to have s and m sex if by definition, it is not
going to have any impact on me or others?
Of course it has an impact, just not a harmful one.
> What are the mistaken notions running rampant?
That there is something wrong with sm for one.
> Isn't there a freedom of expressing sexual ick ? Peculiar to me means
unusual. It is not unusual to express sexual ick.
Well, maybe not to you or the people you associate with. However, none of my friends have the need to register their ick over sexual practices that they are not interested in practicing. When LBO had many postings on Sex and the City and the women and their sexual attractiveness, I felt no need to let the list know that I found heterosex icky. Why when the topic was kinky sex, did people feel the need to say that they find kinky sex icky?
> I'd say the left is a lot more queer friendly than the center and the
right. From a political standpoint it is important to know who your
friends.
Okay. But I do criticize my friends when they are wrong. And my friends are supportive of me and my sexual orientation. They do not refer to it as sick and diseased as was done by LBO listmembers.
> My guess is the fraction on the left for prohibiting gay marriage was
very small, but what about a survey?
If you could arrange one, I think it would be good idea.
> "self-expression" might be more liberal/center than left. The focus on the
"self", the individual. That's why I say "sexual liberation".
Okay I will use self-determination -- queer theory and all..
> But maybe sexuality inherently raises the self more than other issues, I
have to think about it.
I think it does.
> And the left does have to develop a theory of self which distinguishes it
from the liberal/center.
One of the things I about Buddhism: it has a very useful theory of self.
> "Sexual self-expression is too broad. There are anti-social forms of
sexual self-expression , like rape.
Rape is an act of violence, not sexuality.
> As to the status of sexual liberation, I'm thinking that some forms of
sexual liberation do not give rise to a right as fundamental as some other
main left concerns.
Which ones and why not?
> But today, repression of gay/lesbian sexual self-expression is rightwing,
by the movement, struggle and political expression of lgbt.
I have also personally experienced it on the left Charles.
> Also, I analyze sexual liberation especially in relation to women's
liberation.
Do you include transgenders, transexuals and hermaphrodites in your analysis?
> I haven't seen an analysis that gives sadists' sexual liberation the
movement status of other left issues.
What do you need an analysis for? All that is needed is common sense.
> CB And you think that distaste for sadism is "peculiar" ?
> Brian:Yes very. Don't you?
> CB: No
Here we will just disagree.
> What's wrong with having squicks?
Nothing, so long as they are squicks over things that cause harm to others. I am squicked by George Bush's invasion of Iraq. To be be squicked over something that causes no harm is inutile.
> Yes, naughtiness and sex seem to go together like a horse and carriage
because of sexual repression. I don't know what the impact of general
social liberation will have on this connection.
None. That is why sexual liberation/sexual self-determination is needed as well.
> How do you know I am not very effective in the arena of sexual issues?
Have you an analysis of your effectiveness that you would be willing to
share?
:>)
> Why do I want to struggle for the sexual freedom of rightwingers ?
Well, you say you work for the liberation of women. Does that include rightwing women as well? Or have you devised a way of helping only leftist women?
> Rightwing masochists will be sentenced to mild tickling with feathers
short of discomfort, and regular, continuous , small doses of morphine,
bufferin and various healthy analgesics. They must attend happy hours every
Friday and drink until they feel no pain.
Sounds kewl. I will have to try it on some bois I know.
> Wouldn't Buddha recommend celibacy as a path to enlightenment ?
Only to those who would benefit from such a path. There are 84,000 doors to the Dharma.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister