Mike writes:
> S&M is a human product, a product of class
society.
SM is a human product, born of desires hardwired into people.
Your post sounds like an old, 1950's rant against homosexuality with sm substituted for queerness. I guess sexual reactionaries never die, they just change their targets.
> In a general sense it was described by Hegel in
the Lordship and Bondsman section of the
Phenomenology of the Spirit.
As far as looking to Hegel for insight, his ideas about Africans tells you what you need to know:
"The peculiarly African character is difficult to comprehend, for the very reason that in reference to it, we must give up the principle which naturally accompanies all our ideas – the category of Universality."
&
"At this point we leave Africa not to mention it again. For it is no historical part of the world; it has no movement or development to exhibit. Historical movement in it – that is in its northern part – belong to the Asiatic or European world."
Clearly, old GW was not playng with a full deck himself. Anything he said about sex is probably just as inane. Do you have the exact quotes Mike?
Chris asks:
> You still haven't said whether you think something is
"wrong" with necrophilia or incest between consenting
adults, and if so, why, considering that no one is
harmed by them.
There is nothing wrong with it. If you think there is something wrong with it, I would be curious as to your reasoning.
Chris again:
> For that matter I have no problem with saying that
being a racist is in some sense "wrong," even if that
racism is never acted upon and no one is harmed by
it.
Very Buddhist. Kewl.
> Is it "wrong" for a pedophile to lust after children, even
if that impulse is never acted upon (which I'm sure is
probably the case with a lot of pedophiles)? I think most
people here would say "yes."
I think you are confusing two things here. Racism is a belief system, desire is not. Desire resides in people's genetic make-up. We are human beings with sexual natures. We cannot control the arising of desire (actually we can, but that is very advanced Buddhism), but we can structure its manifestation. (I guess I am a proceduralist after all -- in sexual matters at least. LOL).
When desire arises, equanimity is the most useful response. The Ick Factor should be reserved as a tool for the evaluation of the manifestations of desires.
> But that goes for a lot of our moral judgments, I suspect. I
think a lot of "moral philosophy" is really just after-the-fact
rationalizing of our culturally-produced Icks. And I think that's
perfectly fine.
But doesn't this approach allow for women to oppressed? A culturally-produced Ick Factor is created against women, and then rationalized into a moral philosophy? I know you do not think that this would be a good thing.
In the article Doug posted you can see this process at work:
> "Hypersexual girls kinda scare me," said Dan Madigan, a
21-year-old college student. (Stage One: Fear felt).
> "It sounds good in theory: What self-respecting dude wouldn't
jump at the chance of no-strings sex? But when it's thrown
right in your face, it can be pretty off-putting." (Stage Two:
Ick Factor Formation).
> "Get this," he continued: " . . . we both woke up the next morning
for a little morning sex, and, within two minutes of completion, she
had her clothes on and was out the door. No breakfast, no cuddling,
no nothing. Needless to say, that was the last time we slept together."
(Stage Three: Moral Philosophy Formation: Morally correct sexual
events involve affection and emotional sharing. Those partners who
do not provide these elements (in this case hypersexual girls) are
morally deficient. Moral: Hypersexual girls are immoral and bad).
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister