[lbo-talk] Philosophy of Science & Sex, Kink and Ick

andie nachgeborenen andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com
Wed Sep 22 13:44:02 PDT 2004


Joanna and Brian, you both make a mistake about social construction and "hard-wiredness" or biological determination. Brian reasons that because kinkiness (desires to engage in BDSM) is hardwired, it cannot be changed and must be OK. Joanna reasons that because it is socially constructed, it is easy to change. The same error underlies Simon LeVay's (sp?) search for the "gay brain."

The fundamental moral point is going to hold regardless of whether homosexuality or kinkiness is hardwired or socially constructed, hard or easy to change, whatever. And, with reference to Mike's comment, regardless of whether there will be kink after the Revo, and if so what sort. That point is that these are harmless consensual sexual activities that are nobody's business but the people who do them. If those activities don't flip your switches, don't do them. This is not rocket science. It's Liberalism 101.

There are a lot of confusions with the hardwired/socially constructed distinction as it plays out here. "Hard-wired" or "genetically determined" traits are not inalterable. Height and hair and eye color are far more genetically determined than any behavioral trait, but how the phenotype is manifested depends on the environmental circumstances. I could not grow to be as tall as a pro basketball player no matter what, but if my parents had not fed me properly, I would not be 5'10". Socially determined traits are not easy to change. Capitalistic behavior is socially determined, but very hard to change.

Of course kinkiness is socially constructed. It may be also genetically determined. All behavior -- all traits -- are determined by genetics and environment. There isn't anything else. What does that tell you about anything?

Now, it is true that play with excreta is a form of kinkiness. Not Brian's, I think. I think this one pretty icky myself and I would not do it. It's also probably unhealthy. But if it turns people on, it's sexual behavior. I don't follow the distinction Joanna makes between sexual acts and fixations. Fetishism, e.g., foot fetishism, which isn't icky, but is a fixation -- and it is sexual activity, surely.

Brian, take my word, there's a lot to be learned from Hegel.

--- joanna bujes <jbujes at covad.net> wrote:


>
>
> BklynMagus wrote:
>
> >Dear List:
> >
> >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.
> >
> Who you have sex with (male or female) is different
> from what you do
> during sex. It could be argued that taking a shit on
> someone as a sexual
> act, is actually not a sexual act, but a confusion/a
> fixation. But then
> a person making that judgement would be a sexual
> reactionnary and not
> worth listening to.
>
> >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."
> >
> Just because Hegel was wrong about the African
> character doesn't mean he
> was wrong about everything. Most would agree that
> his master/slave
> discussion was insightful, even brilliant.
>
> >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).
> >
> No one is disputing the reality of desire -- we are
> suggesting that its
> manifestations can be culturally controlled. For
> example, the desire of
> a male to have sex with a woman whose vagina has
> been sewn shut is
> culturally conditioned.The desire of a man for a
> virgin is culturally
> conditioned. Some are arguing that S/M is similarly
> conditioned.
>
> Joanna
>
> ___________________________________
>
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