andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>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."
>
I never said it was easy to change.
>
>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.
>
Well, the conversation started with Lolitas and then it drifted into
sex. On the Lolita topic some speculated on the cultural meaning of this
behavior, and they were told that "it was none of their business, it
hurt no one" etc. I think what bothers me most about these topics is
that discussion is actually not allowed by folks who call other folks
repressive. But the only thing that seems to get repressed is discussion.
There are a lot of loaded terms in "consensual sex that hurts no one." I don't mean to say that this matter is black and white; it is the farthest thing from it. Sex between a man and a woman who belong to a culture that butchers up the woman first (clitoral circumcision) is plenty hurtful to the woman; but it would be called consensual because reportedly, women in those cultures believe themselves to be "whores" if they don't cut themselves up. In fact, in many "advanced" cultures a woman's enjoyment of sex branded her a whore and therefore her participation in the ritual called sex involved pain, shame, and little if any pleasure.
If you need to masturbate in a shoe to get off, if that's the only way you get off, I don't think I can talk you out of it and I don't want to put you in jail and I don't want to ridicule you, but I think it is something that can be discussed. Necrophilia is kind of in this category for me.
So what's wrong with consensual discussion on these topics? It hurts no one. We discuss any number of socially constructed/defined/shaped activities. Why not sex? I thought Dworkin's theses about incest that were quoted by (I forget whom right now ) were interesting -- why not discuss them.
Joanna