Brian Dauth:
CB: I don't think the hate of the ruling classes originated because the ruling classes had same-sex practices, but because the ruling classes oppressed and exploited them.
Brian: I wasn't clear. I think that ruling classes were hated for being exploitative, then were depicted as being queer (something else people hated) to boot.
CB: Actually, you were clear. I may have flipped the logic off some,but to go at it one more time, seems obvious the oppressed hated the oppressors for oppression. Then we have your hypothesis that the oppressed were jealous of the same-sexers because of the contraceptive advantage. That is a hypothesis on an independent basis for different-sexers to hate or dislike same-sexers. I think it has to be investigated more to be established, but assume you are right. So, then as you say above , one hated group, the oppressing class, were attributed another hated characteristic.
My thought is that there seems to be evidence that a number of ruling classes ( and I am not being very specific, except Greek and Roman,maybe, for which there is a lot of commonly discussed evidence) _were_ same-sexers. With the Greeks, of course, it was preferred same-sex.
So, the point is the oppressed classes were not attributing a false characteristic to the ruling class, at least the Greek and Roman one.
The larger question is "how much same-sexing were the masses doing ? " In other words, was it _not_ true that it was relatively _unique_ to the ruling class, and rare among the ruled ? Were the oppressed classes being hypocritical/dishonest ?
^^^^^^
Brian: When one group of human beings sees another group of human beings enjoying a pleasure without the dangers or restrictions faced by the first group when they try to do the same thing, many strange things occur.
CB: Why not just start having same-sex instead of chastising the ruling class ?
^^^^^^
CB: In other words, the audience to be persuaded is a large number of the people of Cuba, not the leaders.
Brian: And the leaders, if they are progressives and opposed to heterosexism should be in the vanguard of the persuaders.
CB: Why should they do what you say they "should" do ?
^^^^^
CB: Most likely, the Party members are the most modern in attitude on this.
Brian: Whatever their attitude, the only things can be measured are their actions and the decrease/increase these actions effect on the level of heterosexism.
CB: Why should they care about your measure of their actions ? What have you done for them lately ?
^^^^^
CB: Just using your posts to this list as a measure, one wouldn't really notice that you are pro-Cuban revolution nearly as much as you are pro-queer liberation.
Brian: The fault in your methodology would be using only my posts to this list. Wouldn't that be considered a sampling error Miles? It would be silly to post anti-imperialistic posts to LBO since most everyone on the list is anti-imperialist. Also, most anything I would post would merely be a rephrasing of what I learned from other members on the topic. My posts encouraging/supporting progressive/anti-imperialist politics are mostly made to my queer lists. In doing so, I seek to move the Log Cabinites/HRC'ers toward a more progressive understanding of the world. In fact, just tonight someone posted to one of my lists that Margaret Thatcher was the greatest leader of the 20th century. You have no idea of the trouble I've seen.
CB: I'll take your word for it then. However, just to play out the logic, if you were really seeking to impact Cuba, it would be a good idea to express your anti-imperialism in a way that Cubans would know about your support. I realize this whole line I'm putting forth gets to be a bit hypothetical ( Brian becoming an internationally known pro-Cuban rev/pro-queer liber) , but that's the mode of most discussion on this list.
^^^
Brian: My area of expertise on LBO is queer/kinky sexuality. LBO is a fairly conventional/conservative list when it comes to sexuality (remember the kink thread? I do. LOL).
CB: Remember me saying during that thread the opposite of what you on this ? LBO seems a very progressive/unconventioanl list on sexuality. When you say things like this it makes it seem like you are a bit out of touch with actuality, not to mention insulting your allies in sexual liberation.
Brian: Most members seem to have chosen to follow the conservative path of vanilla heterosexuality.
CB: Leaving aside that you seem not to be reading the same LBO list that I am, on this heterosex as vanilla, what's up on that ? Have you ever had heterosex ? Tastes more like Haagendaz rum raisin with a whole cherry pie on the side , and chocolate too ( and some crack cocaine chaser; JUST KIDDING !!)
But seriously, what's your evidence that heterosex is boring ? Or is this just an expression of resentment against prejudice against gays, like you are saying "ha ha, we have more fun than you do "
^^^^^^
Brian: I am hoping I can demonstrate that freedom of sexual expression is vital to human happiness and progress, and that it deserves to be at the top of the list along with other vital, urgent needs. Of course, with this stance I am offering a direct challenge to the Heterosexual Imperium.
CB: I think most heterosexuals ( or 6.4727 heterosexers on the fluid sexuality model) are probably indifferent to what kind of sex other people are having. It might be a better approach to try to get hetersexers as allies in the movement for freedom of sexual expression, include freedom of sexual expression for heterosexers in your program, don't use terms like "heterosexism", and "hetero is vanilla". To coin a phrase, it tends to turn off heteros to your message. I don't know. Whaddaya think ?
^^^^
CB: My advice is concentrate on your own activities, and don't try to arrange Fidel's practice, especially as you are a Yankee ( I mean so am I),with nowhere near the revolutionary accomplishments of Castro.
Brian: Just because Castro has some revolutionary accomplishments doesn't mean he is a sexual radical. Success in one area doesn't mean success in another. Einstein was a great scientist, but could he make a souffle as well as TJ?
CB: Yea. Again, this may be kinda hypothetical or whatever, but the point here is IF you really wanted to impact _CUBA_, a better tactic would be to recognize and praise Castro's accomplishments, rather than rag him and fall in with the giant chorus of anti-imperialist voices.
^^^^^^
Brian: Also, you obviously have a lot of knowledge and experience in revolutionary activism. But that did not prevent you, when you chose your sexuality, from chosing the safe, conservative, conformist route of vanilla heterosexuality. There is nothing radical, queer or revolutionary about the choice you made or the path you follow. You behaved as your parents, society and culture expected/raised you to. The same is probably true of Castro. Clearly, one can be radical in one area and conservative in another.
CB: Well, I think you open up an interesting new line of discussion here. Actually, I have different ideas of sexual liberation than you do. In recent years, gay liberation has come to dominate discussion of sexual liberation, but before that there were themes of heterosexual liberation. There is nothing queer, but there are things radical and revolutionary about my path.
^^^^^^
CB: Fredrick Douglass on power and all that.
Brian: Why so dismissive? You are not a fan?
CB: It wasn't intended as dismissive. Yes I'm a fan of Frederick Douglass. ^^^^
CB: You can insult the Cuban revolutionaries all you want, to rag people like me who are Communists, but you will only achieve the self-satisfaction of insulting someone while you will undermine any project to help queers in Cuba.
Brian: I am not insulting anyone. I am merely pointing out a fact. Now, maybe you would prefer that I do not point out this fact, but that does not alter the fact.
CB: Well, I'd have to go back and look at your posts,but you did not just recite facts, rather you had commentary too. As I said, what you need to do is explicitly hail the Cuban revolution, praise Castro as a great revolutionary leader (facts); and then state your facts of some problems you see.
I mean look, I can understand that you don't like Castro because he had homophobic positions early in the rev. You are more focussed on gay lib than socialist liberation. On the other hand, the only reason Castro and the Cubans have evolved to a more pro-gay position is that they are genuinely for human liberation in general,and have been persuaded of the legitimate liberation status of gay liberation. So, pragmatically and "factually" and maturely, you might want to consider acknowledging and emphasizing Cuba and Castro as really human liberators.
^^^^^^^
CB: I was responding on point as it was framed on this thread: a comparison between centrally planned economies and markets
Brian: Maybe it would have been useful if you responded to what I had asked instead of to something else.
CB: Nothing wrong with my fitting you into the thread as ongoing. I made plenty of responses to your angle. No, I don't want to switch over to only discussing it from the angle you took on the issues. Maybe it would be useful if you responded to what I was talking about, don't you think?
^^^^^
CB: I'd say it's a better strategy to praise progress as a way to get more of it.
Brian: That is the way of Log Cabinites/HRC. Not very effective. "George, we love that you let the Justice Department let queers celebrate. Do you think now you could do something about Tom DeLay?" NOT.
CB: In brief, if you think of Bush and Castro as the same, you are off. Bush is a generalized oppressor, Castro is a generalized liberator. Your approaches to the two should be different, opposite.
^^^^^
CB: It is imperialistic for you a Yank to make demands on the Cubans about their Constitution. This is a main flaw in your approach.
Brian: It is merely one queer brother helping other queer brothers and sisters achieve equality. As a member of the Heterosexual Imperium you might be unable to understand/comprehend the bonds that exist between queers. Your sexual privilege interferes with your appreciating/experiencing this phenomenon. But since you chose to be a het, you must live with the consequences however ugly they may be.
CB: Yes, I don't think I understand it as well as you, though I can get an idea of what you are feeling from analogies.
You are not merely a queer. You are a USA'er, too. You are unrealistic to think others, Cubans in particular, won't attribute to you your national status.
When you say I choose to be het, do I understand that you no longer subscribe to the idea that sexuality is biologically determined ?