I think you missed my point. I am not talking about public discussions about rights of 'sexual minorities' (or whatever you want to call them) to practice whatever form of sex they consent to, or not having their rights curtailed because of their sexual practices or orientation, or having the same civil rights as everyone else, or for that matter the meaning of "consent to have sex." I am talking about using sex for its shock value, pretty much in the same as someone puts a nazi uniform on or play obscenities on his CD player or publicly disp;ayes some other weird things - just to attract attention, or shock someone, or piss someone off. I am pretty sure that much of this 'explict sexuality' is nothing but a third-rate show-biz and a silly popularity contest having little to do with actual sex acts - as for example nicely portrayed in the film _American Beauty_.
Wojtek
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org
> [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of BklynMagus
> Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 2:25 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: [lbo-talk] Re: Chip Berlet on Hustler
>
> Dear List:
>
> Wojtek writes:
>
> > But I also tend to be of the old persuasion believing
> that what consenting adults do in their bedrooms is their
> personal matter, . . .
>
> Agreed.
>
> > . . . not to be discussed in public.
>
> Unfortunately, the reality is that such behavior needs to be
> discussed in public in order that consenting individuals can
> continue to do as they please in private without fear of prosecution.
>
> > The exhibitionistic dragging it into the televised sphere
> of pop-kultur is a marketing trick that has little appeal to me.
>
> While public discussion may not appeal to you, it is not a
> marketing trick. Sexually oppressed groups never realize how
> large they are until public discussion occurs, and they begin
> to realize how "common" certain behaviors are which
> they and many others long believed were "uncommon."
>
> One of the many tools oppressors use is the specious call to
> an older standard/persuasion/tradition that shuns/denigrates
> such speech not for any valid pragmatic reason, but for its
> alleged prurient nature or its status as merely the detritus
> of a degenerate popular culture.
>
> Brian Dauth
> Queer Buddhist Resister
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>