Charles writes:
> The larger question is "how much same-sexing were
the masses doing?"
Can this ever be known with any certainty?
> In other words, was it _not_ true that it was relatively
_unique_ to the ruling class, and rare among the ruled?
Again, how can we know?
> Were the oppressed classes being hypocritical/dishonest?
Being oppressed does not make one honest.
> Why not just start having same-sex instead of chastising
the ruling class?
Maybe the belief that sexual orientation is a choice was not widely accepted/believed at the time.
> Why should they do what you say they "should" do?
They should do what they want. My question is what reasonable expectation should they have of being acknowledged as revolutionaries if they do not establish the freedom/right of sexual self-expression? Is someone who does not oppose imperialism (of every kind) a revolutionary?
> Why should they care about your measure of their actions?
It is up to them.
> What have you done for them lately?
Promoted their cause on all the gay lists I am a member of.
What have you done for queer/kinky self-expression? Last time we discussed this issue you said you did nothing and were proud of it.
> 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.
My support is there. Look at the lists. I am not into coddling/ babying people.
> LBO seems a very progressive/unconventional list on
sexuality.
Then why did so members express puritan outrage and reach for their lace hankerchiefs when I came out as a sexual sadist?
> 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.
Just stating facts. Sexual progressives are not flustered by a discussion of sexual sadism.
> Have you ever had heterosex?
Yup. Was able to deal with the breasts, but pussy was the killer. Compared to the male asshole, pussy is one unattractive dish (to me, course).
> But seriously, what's your evidence that heterosex is boring?
Never said it was boring. I said it was a conventional sexual choice. It is the one endorsed by church, state, family.
> 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.
Do you have empirical evidence for this or is this just your opinion?
> 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 . . .
That is why I refer to the right of sexual self-expression. It includes everyone.
> . . . don't use terms like "heterosexism", and "hetero is vanilla".
Well I had read that "heterosexism" was preferrable to "homophobia." Has the thinking changed on that? Again I never said that hetsex was vanilla. I was merely remarking that you had presented yourself to the list as having chosen vanilla hetsex as your path. You have never mentioned time spent in dungeons or playspaces, any edgeplay or sm you have experienced/trained in, or gone further than saying that you listen to women in sexual areas.
> Well, I think you open up an interesting new line of discussion here.
Thank you Charles. Forgive the boast, but I was kinda proud of it myself. This insight was what I was talking about in my earlier post responding to Chris.
> Actually, I have different ideas of sexual liberation than you do.
What is that? For me, the right to freedom of sexual expression means that persons of any number are free to engage in any sexual behaviors so long as there is informed consent before and during the behaviors.
> In recent years, gay liberation has come to dominate discussion of
sexual liberation, but before that there were themes of heterosexual
liberation.
I know. I have never read a satisfactory explanation of why this split occured.
> There is nothing queer, but there are things radical and revolutionary
about my path.
To me if you are radical in your sexuality, you are also queer.
> It wasn't intended as dismissive. Yes I'm a fan of Frederick Douglass.
Kewl.
> As I said, what you need to do is explicitly hail the Cuban revolution,
praise Castro as a great revolutionary leader (facts);
Almost great. He muffed sexuality. It keeps him from the pantheon.
> Nothing wrong with my fitting you into the thread as ongoing.
Fine, but do not distort my question when you do so.
> In brief, if you think of Bush and Castro as the same, you are off.
I did not say that. I said the "praise approach" was a strategy of Log Cabinites and the HRC. As I said above, I do not coddle people. Why praise people for doing what is right? You start down that path and you end up praising people for just trying. Constant praise leads to the hyperindividualism that Miles warns us against.
> Bush is a generalized oppressor, Castro is a generalized liberator.
Both behave homophobically.
> Your approaches to the two should be different, opposite.
The best way to approach power is aggressively, no matter who/what the power is. Power doesn't respond to nice talk.
> You are not merely a queer. You are a USA'er, too.
If I lived in Canada I'd be a Canadian. But I still would be queer. If Cubans cannot make this distinction then they need to be more sophisticated. Again it is not my job to pamper people.
> When you say I choose to be het, do I understand that you
no longer subscribe to the idea that sexuality is biologically
determined?
Yup. As I said in my earlier post I have done a lot of thinking and right now see that sexuality is constructed to some extent. I am still struggling with the ideas. I have introduced it on my gays lists and if you think I was adamant . . . LOL. So far I have been able to answer all the responses, but I am sure it is going to get tougher so I will be calling on the sex-as-social- construct experts on LBO for help if they would be so kind.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister