Charles wrote:
> I say, "why should I spend my time on that ? Why does it
concern me ?
Why does the plight of immigrants concern me?
You can ask this question about any advocacy work Charles.
My answer is that ensuring the right to sexual self-determination for all citizens (sm'ers are just the poster children of the moment) leads to society with less suffering, just as assuring housing for all citizens does the same.
> S/M is not against the law is it?
Yes it is.
> As far as individuals feeling s/m is icky, so.
The cultivation of a sense of ick in citizens is a means of controlling sexual desire and it manifestation. If being gay or kinky is a matter of social forces, then feeling ick for these things must be the same. I think that what should be developed is a sense of ick for those things that cause harm. Cultivating a sense of ick for non-harmful things can lead to harm when that ick is expressed (the Buddhist concept of mindful speech) or acted upon in order oppress (right action).
> I'm not going to go around trying to persuade people that s/m is not
icky.
Then why go around and try to persuade people that women aren't icky?
> (They'll think I'm icky :>))
In many cases this is true, but I would not have thought it so of you.
> If you and Yoshie say it actually is not what we think. Then I say, why
not change the name, since sadism and maschoism have a certain connotation
that evidently you say is not accurate for what some people are doing.
That is why it is called consensual bdsm. This terminology has been in use for quite a while.
> You said it doesn't harm me but it concerns me. How does it concern me?
It only concerns you if you think it is wrong to be an enabler of harm.
> Why should I care whether or not you can have s/m sex?
Since I would bet that people who are not oppressed and frustrated in their private lives will have more time to spend on activism on other issues. Ending sexual oppression helps free up time for me and others to work on other issues.
> There are other things in the exchange, and you can bring them back up if
you want.
I was curious how you work for the benefit of only leftist women when you work for the liberation of women, since, as you posted, you see no reason to work for and will not work for the benefit of those who do not support your goals.
> Also, I'm not very open to categorizing heterosexuality like capitalism or
white supremacy, if you follow. I can go with "homophobia" but not "heterosexism".
Could you expand on this Charles. It is not clear to me.
Kelley writes:
> Why do glbt activists feel compelled to frame their sexuality in what
is, ultimately, a het[ero]sexist frame in which one's sexuality is natural,
biological, given, outside of the social?
1. What makes you say they are compelled to do so? Why can't it be that they chose to do so or that this is the way they apprghend their sexuality?
> Why do they feel that this is the only way to present the issue on the lit
they write
Who says it is the only way?
> Why this political strategy that asks for 'acceptance' and tolerance rather
than a fucking change in a social system that demands that sexuality be
framed in this way, as either/or.
Maybe because they feel that this is the most effective means to diminish suffering.
I think it is much better to view humans as animals with a sexual component, demonstrated by the possession of genitalia. Accepting this as a ground, the question them becomes what are the ways to deploy this genitalia that cause suffering and what are the ways to deploy it that do not. Then the state of normativity is reduced to that which harms and that which does not.
What compels people to think otherwise is the Western Abrahmaic discourse of self. If you abandon that you solve many of your problems. But most people are unwilling to be this radical so they keep trying to reform and correct a discourse that is flawed from the get go.
Mike B. writes:
> I'm tyring to convey a social dynamic which, I think, explains one
big reason why class consciousness remains so weak after more than
a hundred years of rational explanation, millions of leaflets, countless
demonstrations, volumes of literature, thousands of speeches and
endless meetings.
So long as people cling to the Western/Abrahamic notion of self, class consciousness will not arise. The two are diametrically opposed to each other.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister